M. KANAGAMBAL Vs. N. SABAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the alleged tenants is the petitioner. The respondents sought for eviction under Ss. 10(2)(I) (Wilful default), 10(2)(VII) (Denial of title) and 10(3)(A)(I) (Owners occupation for residential purpose).

(2.) According to the respondents, they are the owners of the petition premises, the first respondent having purchased the first item of property on 3/10/1996 from one N.Manickam (1st respondent in RCOP) and the second respondent having purchased the second item of property on 31/12/1996 from one Krishnan. It is contended that Manickam, one of the vendors and his wife, the petitioner herein, became tenants under the respondents on a monthly rent of Rs.700.00. The tenancy is said to be oral.

(3.) According to the respondents, the said Manickam was paying rents regularly till December 1997 and thereafter, he did not pay the rent. It was also contended that the first respondent retired from service and he is occupying a very small house adjacent to the rented property. As the same is insufficient for his requirement, he had requested the respondents to vacate and handover possession. The second respondent is likely to get married in the near future and he also requires the portion occupied by Manickam and the petitioner herein. Hence the respondents sent a registered notice on 11/3/2008, requiring the Manickam and the petitioner herein to vacate and also pay the arrears of rent. Manickam sent a reply on 31/3/2008, claiming that he is not a tenant and the sale deed is not true. The respondents would further claim that the said Manickam has admitted the tenancy in his letter dtd. 18/2/1998. Therefore, the respondents sought for eviction on the grounds of Wilful default, Owners occupation and Denial of title.