S.NATARAJAN Vs. P.SUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dtd. 24/2/2015 made in R.C.A.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem (Rent Control Appellate Authority), confirming the fair and decreetal order dtd. 22/9/2014 made in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem (Rent Controller).

(2.) The petitioner is 1st respondent in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem (Rent Controller). The 1st respondent filed the said R.C.O.P. for eviction of the petitioner and 2nd respondent/wife of the petitioner, on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation. According to the 1st respondent, originally, one Karuppanna Pillai was owner of petition premises. He leased out the petition premises to the petitioner for non-residential purposes. The petitioner and 2nd respondent were carrying on Gunny Bag business. The said Karuppanna Pillai sold the petition property by a deed of sale dtd. 6/8/1999 to the 1st respondent. According to the 1st respondent, he met the petitioner and 2nd respondent in August, 1999 itself and informed them about the purchase of petition premises by the 1st respondent and requested them to vacate the petition premises and till that time, to pay the rent to the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent filed suit in O.S.No.368 of 1999, for specific performance of agreement of sale and for permanent injunction, contending that the said Karuppanna Pillai entered into an agreement of sale. After contest, the said suit was dismissed on merits by the judgment and decree dtd. 28/9/2006, with regard to relief of specific performance and refund of advance amount of Rs.1,40,000.00 only was ordered. The petitioner has not paid monthly rent of Rs.700.00 to the 1st respondent from the date of purchase i.e., on 6/8/1999, even after dismissal of First Appeal by the Principal District Judge, Salem in A.S.No.74 of 2006 on 25/6/2007 and dismissal of Second Appeal in S.A.No.1260 of 2007 by this Court on 26/8/2011.The petitioner deliberately committed wilful default in payment of rent.

(3.) The petitioner filed counter statement, which was adopted by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has denied that they committed wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner stated in the counter statement that he was paying the rent to Karuppanna Pillai, pending suit and subsequently to his sons. The Second Appeal filed by the 2 nd respondent was dismissed by this Court only on 26/8/2011. Till such dismissal, there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the 1st respondent and petitioner. The 2nd respondent agreed to purchase the petition premises from Karuppanna Pillai and entered into an agreement. She was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the sons of the Karuppanna Pillai coerced Karuppanna Pillai to execute the sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent. The petitioner is running Gunny Bag business at petition premises in Leigh Bazaar, Salem. In that place only, the grains and Gunny Bag business is carried on. The said place and the petition premises are not suitable for carrying on Silver Articles business. The 1st respondent is carrying on Silvery Articles business in D.No.172, Shevapet Main Road, Salem - 2. The 1st respondent has made allegation that he requires petition premises for his Silver Articles business, only with a view to evict the petitioner by hook and crook method and prayed for dismissal of R.C.O.P.