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.) The first respondent filed a counter statement denying the allegation of subletting. It was stated that the fourth respondent alone was running the business even during the life time of Manickam Chettiyar and Sundresa Mudaliyar and he was running the same in the capacity as partner, though the business was in the name of Manickam Chettiyar and Sundresa Mudaliyar. Since the lease agreement could be entered into only in the name of the partners, it was entered into in the names of Manickam Chettiyar and Sundresa Mudaliyar, however they were not involved in the business. After the demise of the partners of Bharath Coffee Works, the respondents 1 and 2 became partners and subsequently, retired from the partnership business after receiving consideration from the fourth respondent and thereafter, the respondents 3 and 4 along with their family members, are running the business as partners. That on and after 01.10.1984, the respondents 1 and 2 are no manner involved with the business and since the fourth respondent was running the business, there is no subletting. The plea of the landlord that he requires petition premises was denied as lacking in bonafides. The fourth respondent filed separate counter statement virtually reiterating the stand of the first respondent.