P S MUTHUSAMY Vs. G DEENADAYALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have arisen from a common judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kulithalai, confirming the orders of the Rent Controller, Karur in three R.C.O.Ps.69, 70 and 71 of 1986.

(2.) Heard both the Counsel for the parties. The Court on consideration of the submissions made and careful scrutiny of the available materials, is of the considered view that no case is made out even to make an admission of the revision petitions.

(3.) The said R.C.O.Ps.69, 70 and 71/86 were filed by the respondent/landlord Deenadayalan under Ss 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(i) and 14(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alleging that the revision petitioners herein were tenants in respect of the petition mentioned premises respectively; that they have been paying the rents to the previous landlord; that he purchased the property; that thereafter, the rents were paid to him; that there were occasions where the rents were sent by money orders; that subsequently they committed willful default in payment of rental; and that now the premises is required for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction and for personal occupation also. This was seriously contested by the revision petitioners/tenants interalia that originally they were not tenants; that what was taken by them was only a vacant site, wherein constructions were made by them; that there was no wilful default on their part in paying the rents; that the building is not required by the landlord either for demolition or for personal occupation, since he is owning two properties in that place, and hence, all the three R.C.O.Ps. deserve to be dismissed. The learned Rent Controller on a proper enquiry, though negatived the ground of wilful default, agreed with the case of the respondent/landlord that the building is required for demolition and reconstruction and found that the requirement of the building by the landlord for personal occupation was genuine and ordered all the R.C.O.Ps. accordingly. Aggrieved revision petitioners/tenants took it on appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.Nos.4, 5 and 6 of 2002. The learned Appellate Authority after due enquiry, affirmed the orders of the Rent Controller on both grounds and rightly too.