KANNIKA Vs. KRISHNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the tenant as revision petitioner against the common judgment and decrees dated 25.1.1999 and made in M.A.Nos.19 to 21 of 1995 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge(Appellate Authority) at Pondicherry, confirming the common order and decretal orders dated 14.11.1997 in R.C.O.P.Nos.19 to 21 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control (Principal District Munsif) Court, Pondicherry.

(2.) The respondent herein, who was the petitioner before the Rent Control Court, Pondicherry, is the owner of the premises described in the Rent Control Original Petitions filed for eviction against the revision petitioner, who is admittedly tenant of the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- on the grounds of committing wilful default in payment of rent, subletting and own use and occupation. Eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful default for not paying rent from June, 1994 to November, 1994. Eviction was sought for on the ground of subletting portions of demised premises along with municipal platforms to one Ramesh for running "Malligai Lottery Agency" and to one Venkatesh for doing business in bangles, ear rings, etc., on a monthly rent of Rs.600/- and Rs.200/- respectively. Eviction was sought for on the ground of own use and occupation as the demised premises is required for his second son, who is doing pawn broker business in an insufficient and inconvenient small room of his residential house bearing Door No.98 (old Door No.68), Kalatheeswaran Koil Street, Pondicherry to which portion a separate Door number was given as Door No.100, from the year 1992.

(3.) The tenant as respondent before Rent Control Court resisted the claim of landlord on the following grounds:- The premises described in the Rent Control Original Petitions was let out to Saraswathi, the mother of this revision petitioner to run a book shop for Rs.1,200/- per month and an advance of Rs.3,600/- was also received by the respondent herein from Saraswathi, under a lease deed dated 5.2.1982 and the lease deed was renewed on 5.2.1983 and again on 5.1.1991. The rent was increased to Rs.1,500/- per month with increased advance of Rs.4,500/- from Rs.3,600/- already paid. Again a fresh lease deed was entered into on 5.6.1994 between the revision petitioner and the respondent herein, in which the revision petitioner had agreed to pay rent of Rs.1,800/- per month with the increased advance of Rs.6,000/- from Rs.4,500/-. The revision petitioner is continuing as tenant in the demised premises till this date. The respondent herein, contrary to the terms of the lease agreement dated 5.6.1994, demanded rent of Rs.2,500/- per month from June, 1994 and refused to receive the rent at Rs.1,800/- per month tendered by the revision petitioner. The respondent herein asked to vacate the premises unless the revision petitioner is willing to pay rent at Rs.2,500/- per month. While the revision petitioner was attempting to arrive at an amicable settlement to run the book shop in the demised premises through common well-wishers, the respondent herein issued a notice with mala fide intention. The revision petitioner immediately sent a banker's cheque dated 2.1.1995 bearing No.540845 for Rs.10,800/- to the respondent herein towards rent from June, 1994 to December, 1994. The revision petitioner continued to pay the rent for subsequent period through banker's cheque and the said amount was received. The second son of the respondent is in occupation of a big and sufficient space to carry on his pawn broker business and the respondent herein and other members of his family are having lot of properties within the Pondicherry Town limits. As the premises under the occupation of the second son of the respondent herein is convenient, sufficient and comfortable to carry on pawn broker business, the requirement of the demised premises for own use and occupation is not bona fide. The allegation that the revision petitioner had sublet the demised premises and is receiving rent is also not correct. The revision petitioner has paid a 'pagadi' of Rs.40,000/- to the respondent herein to occupy the premises and had invested a sum of Rs.3 lakhs in stocking of books and therefore, the revision petitioner has sought for dismissal of the petitions.