HILURU HAMEEDHA BEGUM Vs. PAPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The landlady filed the petition under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in RCOP.No.89/1992 before the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Tirunelveli and the same was decreed on 22.12.1994. As against the same, the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA.No.11/1995 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli and the said appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady has preferred this civil revision petition.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent, who took the petition premises on lease in October 1988 for running a business in ornament making, on a monthly rent of Rs.275/- payable on or before 5th of every English calendar month. The respondents are very irregular in payment of rent and they have paid a sum of Rs.1,100/- on 12.5.1992, being the four months rent from September 1991 to December 1991. Likewise, on 11.11.1991, the 2nd respondent paid the rent from May 1991 to August 1991. The respondents were in arrears from January 1992 and on the date of filing of the petition, they were in arrears for 7 months, of Rs.1,925/-, which they have not paid and the non payment of the same is willful and wanton. The respondents have demolished the walls in the downstairs portion and put up a new door way and doors and sublet the same and the sub tenant is running an enamel unit therein. The respondents have also sublet the upstairs portion to another ornament maker, Chidambaram and these sublettings were without the written consent of the petitioner. By demolishing the old walls, the respondents have also committed acts of waste and on that ground also, they are liable to be evicted.