B ANUSUYA Vs. A GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 18 of 1960 against the Judgment and Decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Subordinate Judge of Krishnagiri dated 23.3.1991 made in R.C.A.No.2 of 1998 thereby reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Rent Controller and District Munsif of Krishnagiri dated 24.2.1998 made in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 1996.

(2.) When the above matter was taken up for consideration, on perusal of the records and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, what comes to be known is that the petitioners herein have filed R.C.O.P.No.7/96 before the District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller at Krishnagiri seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on ground of willful default, sub-letting, causing nuisance to the neighbours and for owners occupation.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the owner of the property and the 2nd petitioner is her husband; that the first petitioner had rented to the respondents a portion of the petition premises in the year 1990 for a monthly rent of Rs.175/-; that with an enhancement of Rs.50/- per year, the tenancy period was fixed as three years and on condition that the rent had to be paid on the first day of every month and on payment of an advance of Rs.1000/-; that it was agreed that without prior permission from the petitioners, the respondents should not sub-let the rented portion; that in the year 1990, the first respondent had taken vacant possession of the petition premises and the monthly rent of Rs.175/- had been subsequently increased in 1991 to Rs.225/-, in 1992 to Rs.275/-, in 1993 to Rs.325/-, in 1994 to Rs.375/- and in 1995 to Rs.425/-; that the first respondent promised to vacate the premises by the end of 1995; that without vacating the petition premises in the year 1995, the first respondent paid Rs.375/- only and he had not paid the rent for the month of September and October 1995; that the petitioners did not refuse to receive the rent; that inspite of it, the first respondent had sent the same by money order; that the first respondent had sub-let a portion of the premises to the 2nd respondent's brother Murugesan and the family members were residing in the said place; that the said Murugesan was doing textiles business and he used to drink liquor and often caused nuisance to the neighbours; that the respondents were letting waste water into the pipeline of drinking water; that the respondents were trying to illegally purchase the property; that there was a dispute between the landlord and the tenant and the same had gone to the extent of lodging a complaint before the police; that the petitioner's two daughters and three sons were married and they were in need of the petition premises and therefore, on 23.7.1996, the petitioners gave a notice to the respondents to vacate the premises and that even on receipt of the notice, the respondent refused to vacate the premises and hence the R.C.O.P.