AYODHIRAMAN Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1996 and made in R.C.A.No.8 of 1994 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli reversing the order and decretal order dated 25.11.1993 and made in R.C.O.P.No.165 of 1987 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli.

(2.) The facts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:- The revision petitioner is the landlord of the demised premises described in the Rent Control Original Petition which is a portion of Door No.66 in Big Sowrashtra Street, Woraiyur, Tiruchy Town. The respondents herein are the tenants of the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs.85/-. The respondents herein have committed wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1987. The son of the revision petitioner, who is a graduate, is doing lottery ticket business and the demised premises is required for own use and occupation. It is on these grounds, the revision petitioner has sought for eviction of the respondents herein from the demised premises.

(3.) The respondents herein as respondents before the learned Rent Controller have resisted the claim made by the landlord as revision petitioner on the following grounds:- The respondents herein have not committed wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1987. The revision petitioner demanded enhanced rent of Rs.200/- per month and the respondents herein were not agreeable for the same. The rent tendered by the respondents herein to the revision petitioner was refused and the revision petitioner herein attempted to evict the respondents herein forcibly which lead to the filing of suit in O.S.No.707 of 1987 for the relief of permanent injunction, except through process of law. The rent sent by money order was also returned as refused. The son of the revision petitioner, who is a graduate, is not doing lottery ticket business and therefore, the requirement of the demised premises for own use and occupation, is not bona fide. Hence, the respondents herein as respondents before the learned Rent Controller sought for dismissal of the petition.