P. SUNDARAM Vs. R. GANGADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant filed by the tenant as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2000 and made in R.C.A No. 410 of 1998 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras confirming the order and decretal order of the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, dated 30.4.1998 in R.C.O.P. No. 1701 of 1996 on the grounds of wilful default and own use and occupation, but reversing the finding of the learned Rent Controller (XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) on the ground of subletting.

(2.) THE facts that are necessary for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows : The first respondent herein, who is the petitioner before the Rent Control Court, is the landlord of the building described in the Rent Control Original Petition and the revision petitioner, who is the first respondent before the Rent Control Court, has been in occupation, as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. The premises was let out to the revision petitioner for running tailoring shop. The revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent from April, 1996 to June, 1996 inspite of the demand made by issue of notice dated 12.7.1996. The revision petitioner has also subject the said premises on 15.7.1996 to the Second Respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- without the consent of the 1st respondent herein the landlord. A notice was also sent to the second respondent on 20.7.1996. The first respondent required the demised' premises for own use and occupation for the purpose of starting a vegetable shop for his son G. Murugan and the requirement is bonafide. On this ground the first respondent has sought for eviction of the revision petitioner from the demised premises.

(3.) AFTER considering the material evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has not committed wilful default in payment of rent, but the revision petitioner has sublet the demised premises to the second respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- the learned Rent Controller has also found that the requirement of the demised premises for own use and occupation for starting a vegetable shop for his son Murugan is bonafide. Aggrieved at the order dated 30.4.1998 in RCOP No. 1701 of 1996 by the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the first respondent/tenant as appellant preferred the appeal in R.C.A. No. 410 of 1998 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. After considering the submission made on both sides and in the light of the material evidence available on record, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller with regard to the grounds of wilful default and own use and occupation, but reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller with regard to subletting holding that the said premises was sublet by the revision petitioner to the second respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- without the consent of the first respondent, the landlord. On the above said findings, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority sustained the order of the eviction passed against the revision petitioner. Aggrieved at the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2000 and made in R.C.A. No. 410 of 1998 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the first respondent/tenant as revision petitioner has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.