A MADASAMY NADAR Vs. A J KHAJA NAZAMUDECN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Uthamapalayam, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. THE petitioners 1 and 2 in the said R.C.O.P. are the respondents 1 and 2 in the civil revision petition. THE first respondent in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1981 is the third respondent herein. THE third respondent in the R.C.O.P. is the fourth respondent herein. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the Rent Control Original petition.

(2.) THE petitioners filed R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1981 under Secs.l0(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(vii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. THE case of the petitioners is as follows: THE petition mentioned property belongs to the petitioners by inheritance. It was leased out by the father of the petitioners to one Serma Sami on a monthly rent of Rs.23 even before 1972. THE said Serma Sami was paying rent and obtaining printed receipts and the last receipt was issued on 12.11.1973. On the death of Serma Sami his brother, the second respondent, let out by the petition property to the first respondent and he was collecting rent. THE second respondent did not pay any rent to the petitioners from 1.10.1973 though he would set up a case of joint family between himself and his brother, Serma Sami. As the respondents have not paid the rent for a period of six years, the petitioners issued a notice to the first respondent on 18.8.1980. THE second respondent sent a reply denying the title of the petitioners. THE petition mentioned building is required for demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence on record the learned Rent Controller found that there is a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the second respondent; that the second respondent has denied the title of the petitioners; that he has committed wilful default in the payment of rent to the petitioners and that the petitioners bona fide required the building in question for demolition and reconstruction. Consequently the Rent Controller allowed the Rent Control Original Petition and passed an order of eviction against the second respondent.