MEENATCHI Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are the landlords and they are the legal heirs of one Gnanam Pillai who died in the year 1987. There is no depute that the respondent herein was apprised of the fact of the death of Gnanam Pillai and there was an attornment of tenancy between the petitioners/landlords and the respondent/tenant. The case of the petitioners is that the petition mentioned property was rented out to the respondent by Gnanam Pillai for residential purposes on a monthly rent of a sum of Rs. 65/-, and the respondent has also paid a sum of Rs. 500/- as advance. It is stated that the respondent occupied the property and resided in the building for some time, and thereafter he constructed a building of his own and shifted his residence to that building which is situate at M.C.S.R. Street, Kumbakonam. According to the petitioner, the respondent is using the petition mentioned property for non-residential purposes by keeping the same as a godown to stock materials for cement pipes. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent has converted the residential building by using the same for non- residential purposes without the knowledge of the petitioner, and the respondent is using the building for the purpose other than the one for which the building was let out, and hence, the respondent is liable to be evicted. In the petition, the petitioners have given the full description of the petition mentioned property.

(2.) THE case of the respondent in the counter statement is that he is a tenant and there was a lease by which the respondent was given right to put up superstructure of his own. According to him, the lease was granted to him for the purpose of running business of manufacturing industrial parts and he is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. It is stated that it is not correct to state that the lease was for residential purposes and he never resided in the building and he was living in the family house up to 1971 and thereafter at various other places. The respondent has stated that a single petition for one property alone while the respondent is using the other properties also for the same single purpose by paying a consolidated rent is not maintainable.

(3.) BEFORE the Rent Controller, the third petitioner Mahadevan was examined and he has deposed that under Ex. P-1 the property was let out to the respondent for residential purposes alone. However, the taking of the document Ex. P-1 on the file of the Court and marking the same as an exhibit was objected to by the respondent. It is the evidence of the third petitioner that the respondent is using the petition mentioned property for non-residential purposes. To prove that the petition mentioned property is different from the properties covered in the other deeds of lease, the third petitioner produced Ex. P-2 which is a registered lease deed in respect of the properties other than the petition mentioned property. The evidence of the third petitioner shows that apart from the petition mentioned property, the lands surrounding the building were let out to the respondent under separate deeds of lease.