RAJAM AMMAL Vs. P K PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 99 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Kumbakonam, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondents 1 to 4 in the said R.C.O.P. are the respondents in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.

(2.) The petitioner filed R.C.O.P. No. 99 of 1980 against the respondents for eviction under Ss.10(2)(1) and 10(2)(ii)(a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows : The petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned premises and the same has been let out to the first respondent under a registered lease agreement dated 3-5-1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. The first respondent had paid Rs. 2,000/- as advance. The first respondent committed wilful default in the payment of rent for 12 months from October, 1979. The first respondent had also sublet the petition mentioned premises to the respondents 2 to 4 without the written consent of the petitioner. The non-residential premises has been sublet to the third respondent for residential purpose and, therefore, the respondents are liable to be evicted from the petition mentioned premises.

(3.) The second respondent as a power attorney agent of the first respondent, who is residing in Seychelles in South Africa, filed a counter contending as follows : The first respondent is the husband of the petitioner. From out of the earnings of the first respondent he had purchased the petition mentioned property benami in the name of the petitioner. When the first respondent came to India he found that the conduct of the petitioner was questionable. Therefore, at the instance of the first respondent the petitioner executed a registered settlement deed in favour of her daughters in respect of the petition mentioned property. Since the petitioner wanted maintenance for her livelihood an arrangement in the guise of a lease was suggested and in those circumstances, the lease agreement dated 3-5-1979 came into existence. There is no relationship of landlady and tenant between the petitioner and the first respondent. There is no subletting as alleged in the petition for eviction.