S CHHAGANMULL BAFNA Vs. C G RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL revision petition No. 26 of 1987 is directed against the order passed in R. C. A. No. 1293 of 1984, which in turn arose out of the order passed in R. C. O. P. No. 3583 of 1982. C. R. P. No. 27 of 1987 is directed against the order passed in R. C. A. No. 1314 of 1984, which in turn arose out of the order passed in R. C. O. P. No. 3798 of 1982. The tenants are the petitioners in both these revisions. The 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner are the husband and wife. The landlady is common in both these revisions. The petition premises is situate at No. 3, Kariappa Mudali Street , Purasawalkam, Madras-7.

(2.) THE case of the landlady in H. R. C. O. P. No. 3583 of 1982 is as under: This petition for eviction was filed under Sec. l0 (2) (i)and Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as'the act'). THE tenants are in occupation of a residential portion consisting of four big rooms, a bath room and a flush-out in the downstairs of the premises at No. 3, Kariappa Mudali Street , Purasawalkam, Madras on a monthly rent of Rs. 400. Besides the rent, a sum of Rs. 70 is payable for electricity charges every month. THE tenants failed and neglected to pay the rent from 1. 9. 1981 to 31. 7. 1982 and thus committed wilful default in payment of rent and thereby rendering themselves liable to be evicted under Sec. 10 (2) (1) of the Act. THE landlady's brother C. B. Gopalakrishnan is residing in a rented premises at No. 64, Guruvappa Chetty Street , chintadripet, Madras-2. THE landlady's brother is not having any premises of his own in Madras City . He is paying Rs. 275 per month towards rent for the premises in which he is residing. THE landlady is an unmarried person and she is residing with her aged mother in the front of the premises at No. 3, Kariappa Mudali Street , Purasawalkam, Madras . For the sake of protection and assistance, she is desirous of having her brother with her in the premises in which she is residing. THErefore, she required the petition premises under the occupation of the tenants bona fide under Sec. l0 (3) (a) (i) of the Act. THE landlady sent a notice dated 28. 4. 1982 to the tenants calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent as well as to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petitioner premises. On 11. 5. 1982 the tenants sent a reply refusing to vacate the petition premises.

(3.) IN the counter filed by the tenants, it is stated as under: The tenants are using the petition premises for the purpose of their pawn broking business and the rent for the petition premises is Rs. 50 and not Rs. 100 per month as alleged by the landlady. According to the tenants, the electricity charge is Rs. 20 per month as alleged by the landlady. The tenants submitted that the landlady is not having any vehicle of her own. Therefore, her requirement of the petition premises for parking her vehicle bona fide is not correct. IN so far as the arrears of rent is concerned, according to the tenants, they did not commit any wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlady. According to the tenants, the landlady executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 40,000 in favour of the wife of chhaganmull Bafna, promising to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. On the very same date, an agreement was also entered into between the parties. According to the said agreement, the tenants need not pay the rent for the petition premises and the landlady need not pay the interest on the abovesaid sum of Rs. 40,000. It was, therefore, pleaded that there is no arrears of rent as alleged by the landlady.