R RATHINAM Vs. P NITYANANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1995 rendered in R.C.A.No.5 of 1992 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Krishnagiri thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 7.1.1992 made in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1989 by the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Krishnagiri.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed before this Court, what comes to be known is that it is the Rent Control Petition in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1989 that has been initially filed by the landlord-respondent herein seeking fixation of fair rent enhancing the same to Rs.900/= per month, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on the averments such as that the petitioner/tenant herein, who is the respondent before the Rent Controller, based on an agreement with the landlord/respondent herein is in possession of the petition property bearing Door No.211, Bangalore Road, Krishnagiri from the year 1981 on agreement that he would pay a monthly rent of Rs.125/- but the tenant defaulted; that the relatives of the landlord have filed a suit in O.S.No.256 of 1983 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Krishnagiri claiming the ownership of the petition property and the adjacent properties, which came to be decided on 28.4.1989 thereby declaring that the ownership of the landlord to the petition property; that the rent was fixed eight years back; that due to spiralling of crisis, he demanded an enhanced rent from the tenant for which the tenant did not agree, as a result of which the landlord had to issue a notice on 5.5.1989 for which the tenant also sent a reply dated 6.6.1989. On such averments, the landlord, would pray for the relief in the RCOP.

(3.) On the contrary, the tenant-respondent would submit before the Rent Controller in his counter, denying generally all the allegations of the Rent Control Petition and further specifically stating that as against the decision of the Original Suit No.256 of 1983, mentioned supra, an appeal has been preferred by the relatives of the landlord and therefore, the fair rent cannot be fixed at present; that the relatives of the petitioner have filed RCOP.No.3 of 1983 for vacating the building and the said RCOP is still pending and therefore, prayer of the petitioner seeking for an enhanced rent of Rs.900/= and praying for fixation of the same as fair rent is neither justified, nor feasible in law and hence would pray for the dismissal of the RCOP with costs.