K MANAVALAN Vs. ESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions were filed by the tenant as revision petitioner in both the civil revision petitions against the common judgment and decree dated 672000 and made in RCANos724 and 805 of 1996 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the eviction ordered on the ground of sub letting and setting aside the order passed negativing the claim made for eviction on the ground of wilful default in RCOPNo3244 of 1991 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras

(2.) THE facts that are necessary for disposal of these civil revision petitions are as follows: THE premises described in the rent control original petition belongs to the first respondent in both the civil revision petitions, who is the petitioner/ landlady before the Rent Control Court THE revision petitioner in both the civil revision petitions, who is the first respondent before the Rent Control Court is tenant of the southern portion in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs450 under the 1st respondent herein THE premises was let out for non-residential purpose and the revision petitioner was running a cool drink shop under the name and style of "Anna Cool Bar" in the demised premises THE revision petitioner has sublet the demised premises to the second respondent herein and he is running business under the name and style of "Metro Footwear" in the demised premises THE subletting was without the consent of the 1st respondent herein THE revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent from August, 1991 to October, 1991 THErefore, the 1st respondent herein has sought for eviction of the revision petitioner and the second respondent herein on the abovesaid grounds

(3.) THE revision petitioner, who claims that the 2nd respondent herein is only an employee, in Metro Footwear on a monthly salary of Rs450 has not chosen to produce any material to show that the 2nd respondent is working as an employee under the revision petitioner No reason was given as to why the acquittance roll maintained in the shop was not produced before the Court THE revision petitioner would also admit during cross examination, while he was examined as RW1, before the Rent Control Court that there is no accounts maintained in the footwear shop and he has not submitted sales-tax or income-tax return in connection with the said business He has also admitted during cross examination that there is no record in writing to show that he is running footwear business in the demised premises To run a business of the nature in the city of Madras, the revision petitioner ought to have obtained valid license from the Corporation Authorities and other authorities THE fact of not obtaining any such licence from the authorities concerned would also lead to conclude that he might not be running the footwear business in the demised premises RW2 would admit during cross examination that cash bills will be issued as seen in ExB-8 for sale of footwears and there are bill books, account books and invoice in the shop for running the said business RW2 further would admit that the revision petitioner alone will write account books daily and the bill books and invoices will be given only to the revision petitioner RW2 would also admit that there is no record for receipt of salary by him from the revision petitioner herein It is not known as to why the revision petitioner has denied the existence on the above said documentary evidence before Court and has chosen not to file the above said documentary evidence to establish that he is the owner of Metro Footwear and not the 2nd respondent herein