M.S. HOHAMMED JAHABAR KADIRI Vs. G. GOVINDARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed, under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 18.10.1994, made in RCA.No.12 of 1990, on the file of the of Rent Control Appellate Tribunal (Sub Court), Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.10.1989 in RCOP NO.37 of 1986 on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruvarur.

(2.) THE Revision petitioner (since deceased) is the landlord and the respondents herein were the respondents in the eviction petition. The landlord filed RCOP No.37 of 1986, for eviction of the respondents from the petition premises on the ground of subletting and for his own use and occupation. It is stated that during 1960, the property was leased out to Manickam Chettiyar and Sundresa Mudaliyar for running coffee power business on a monthly rent of Rs.60/-. The terms and conditions of the lease were reduced into writing by two registered lease deeds dated 18.07.1960 and 06.01.1966. Subsequently, two other unregistered lease agreements were executed on 01.07.1970 and 01.06.1978. Initially the lease was in respect of Door No.64, and after 01.06.1978, the adjacent door No.64/1 was also given on lease. The landlord further stated that after the demise of the registered leases though no lease agreements were entered into between the respondents 1 and 2 as they were the legal heirs of the said Manickam Chettiyar and Sundresh Mudaliyar and being partners of the coffee power business, they were in occupation of the petition premises, (the first respondent is the son in law of Mainckam Chettiyar and the second respondent is the wife of Sundresa Mudaliyar). The landlord further stated that there was no right conferred on the tenants to sublet the property, however the respondents 1 and 2 stopped carrying on business and sublet the premises to the third respondent, who is running the business along with the fourth respondent, his father. Therefore, the landlord contended that the respondents are liable to be evicted on the ground of subletting. The landlord further sought for eviction on the ground of requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation, by stating that the shop in which he was running a provision store, had been given to son-in-law and therefore, he is desirous of staring a new business in the petition premises as he does not own any other shop.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Rent Controller, the landlord examined himself as PW-1 and three other witness were examined as PW-2 to 4 and thirty documents were exhibited as Exhibits A1 to A30. The respondents 1 and 4 were examined as RW-1 &2 and one Packrisamy was examined as RW-3 and nine documents were marked as Exhibits R1 to R9. The learned Rent Controller framed three questions for consideration, whether, the landlord requires the premises for own use and occupation, whether the respondents 3 &4 are sub-tenants and whether the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The learned Rent Controller decided all the three questions against the landlord and dismissed the eviction petition.