BADRUDDIN MOHAMEDALLY Vs. T AND B DEHGANWALA ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions are taken up with the consent of parties. The short facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding these revisions are as follows: The respondent herein filed R. C. O. P. No. 273 of 1988 and R. C. O. P. No. 274 of 1988 for eviction of the petitioner from premises No. 188, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras-1 and No. 134, Angappan Naicken street, Madras-1 under Secs. 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as' ; the act' ; ). The two grounds for eviction are that the petitioner is guilty of wilful default in payment of rent from 1. 3. 1987 to 30. 11. 1987 and that he has committed an act of waste impairing materially the value of the building and utility thereof. The petitions wee contested by the petitioner on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant as defined by the Act, as the parties were co-owners. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a petition for eviction under the provisions of the Act could not be maintained by one co-owner against another co-owner.

(2.) THE Rent Controller held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parlies and the petitions for eviction were maintainable. He also held that the petitioner was guilty of wilful default though he found against the plea of act of waste. Thus, he passed an order of eviction against the petitioner.

(3.) THE question that arises in this case is whether the lease agreements referred to have brought into existence the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner within the meaning of the Act. While it is contended for the petitioner that there cannot be any lease as such among co-owners and any instrument, though garb of a lease deed, will not be effective as a lease. On the other hand it is contended the respondent that a lease in possible among the co-owners by some co-owners or owners together on the one side in favour of one of the co-owners or a few of the co on the other side. According to the respondent, there is no prohibition to such a transaction either in the Transfer of Property Act or in the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act.