RAMASAMY Vs. TULAJABAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant in rent control proceedings is the petitioner in this C.R.P. THE respondent filed H.R.C.O.P.No.72 of 1979, on the file of the Rent Controller-cum Munsif, Coimba-tore, a petition for eviction of the tenant, namely, the petitioner herein, the grounds that he wilfully defaulted in payment of rents, that the premises in occupation of the tenant is required for own use and occupation, namely, for the use son who is a Medical Doctor, as a consulting room, and on the ground that the tenant sub-let the premises without the written authorisation of the landlady.

(2.) THE petitioner herein resisted the eviction petition inter alia contending that there was subletting at all. THE second respondent herein is his own son-in-law and looking after (petitioner's) business, and that the premises in his (petitioner's) occupation was suitable for a Medical Doctor to use it as a consulting room, and the requirement was not bona fide. Regarding the default in payment of rents, the petitioner has stated that was let in as a tenant by the previous owner by name Rajana Bai who has sold that premises to the 1st respondent under a registered sale deed dated 30.8.1978. According to petitioner, the vendor of the 1st respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,500 and in interest, there was an agreement between the vendor of the 1st respondent and petitioner to enjoy the suit premises without actual payment of rent. THErefore, the question of payment of rent will not arise. Consequently, there cannot be any wilful default payment of rents.

(3.) REGARDING own use, Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/tenant, pointed out that there was no pleading to the effect that the landlady's son had residential premises of his own for using the same as consulting room and that the failure give that information is fatal to the claim of the landlady. He also submitted that even evidence of P.W.I, there was nothing to indicate that the son does not own nonresidential property of his own to run the consulting room. He further submitted son being a government servant, is liable to be transferred from place to place and, there was no justification in the landlady claiming the premises in question for the use son.