ALBERT Vs. M Y MOHAMMED SYED IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the tenant. THE respondent filed R.C.O.P.No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Coonoor for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and owner's occupation.

(2.) THE case of the respondent/ landlord was that the property originally belonged to one Annaswamy and from the legal heirs of Annaswamy he purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 15.2.2000 and even before the sale, his vendors informed the revision petitioner to attorn tenancy in favour of the respondent and even after the purchase the respondent sent a letter to the revision petitioner informing about the sale in his favour and requested the revision petitioner to attorn tenancy in his favour. THE same was followed by the lawyer's notice. THE revision petitioner evaded the receipt of all the notices and also did not pay the rent. THErefore, the application was filed for eviction on the above grounds.

(3.) ON the other hand, Ms.P.T.Asha the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under Ex.R1, the revision petitioner claims to be in possession of the property and there is nothing in Ex.R1 to suggest that possession was handed over to the revision petitioner under the document and no proof has been adduced by the revision petitioner that he has put up construction in the said property and when the original owners sent notice to the revision petitioner informing about the sale in favour of the respondent, the respondent did not receive the notice and even in the evidence the respondent has stated that he was not aware of the legal heirs of G.A.Thomas and surprisingly the sale deed has been produced as if G.A.Thomas left behind his son by name Alexter Cyril and he executed a sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner on 28.10.2009 and according to the respondent, G.A.Thomas died issueless and without producing the legal heirship certificate of G.A.Thomas, it cannot be stated that G.A.Thomas left behind him a son and the sale deed was obtained by the revision petitioner from that son. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore submitted that having regard to the fact that the previous vendors informed the revision petitioner about the sale and requested the revision petitioner to attorn tenancy in favour of the respondent, the Courts below has rightly held that the respondent became the owner of the property and therefore the eviction ordered by the Court below need not be interfered with in the revision petition.????