ALAUDIN & OTHERS Vs. A SATHAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2010 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam in R.C.A. No. 2 of 2008, whereby the Appellate Authority reversed the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Connor in R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2005.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The first Petitioner in the C.R.P. viz., N. Alaudeen being the owner of the suit premises filed R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2005 against the Respondent therein, who is his own son, for eviction on the ground of willful default under Section 10(2)(i) and also for his own use and occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). The case of the first Petitioner is that the suit premises was leased out by him to his son, the Respondent, on 01.07.2001 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- . At the time of lease the Respondent paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the monthly rent regularly. The Petitioner's further case is that the Respondent right from the date of tenancy did not pay the rent, and thereby, committed default. The first Petitioner, therefore, by notice dated 12.07.2004 terminated the tenancy on the ground of willful default in payment of monthly rent for the period between 01.07.2001 and 31.06.2004, and also on the ground of owner's occupation requiring the premises for his another son A. Hanifa, and directed the Respondent to vacate the building and hand over possession of the same. The notice was duly acknowledged by the Respondent, but he did not send any reply. Hence, a Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2005 was filed on the file of the Rent Controller, Connor.

(3.) The Respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement denying the execution of the lease deed dated 01.07.2001, and further alleged that he was permitted by his father, the first Petitioner, to occupy the premises and as such, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The Respondent's further case is that he has paid Rs. 1 lakh to his father for the construction of the suit premises.