M AGASTHILINGAM PILLAI Vs. K R NARASIMHA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant before the Courts below has filed this Revision against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.18/99 ,Salem.

(2.) The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Revision are as follows: The landlord is the owner of the petition mentioned premises and the Respondent is a tenant in respect of the same building on a monthly rent of Rs.1300/- He has stated that the respondent was irregular in payment of rent and he has to pay rent from 1.1.1993 onwards. Though he issued legal notice through his counsel on 18.6.93, the respondent has not come forward to pay the rent. Further with ulterior motive, the respondent is setting up the title of the petition mentioned premises to the petitioner's sisters and thus denying the title of the petitioner. Hence, the landlord / Petitioner has filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P.44/93 against the tenant / Respondent under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vii) on the ground of wilful default and denial of title of the landlord. Respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition.

(3.) After hearing both sides and upon perusing the documents available before the Court, the Rent Control Authority has allowed the eviction petition granting three months time to the respondent to vacate the petition mentioned premises. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent/ tenant has filed R.C.A.18/99 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem who after a detailed analysis confirmed the order of the Rent Controller holding that the respondent has wantonly not paying the monthly rent in respect of the petition mentioned premises to the landlord and only after institution of the fair rent petition under Section 11 (4) by the landlord, the respondent has deposited a sum of Rs.35,100/- and that as regards denial of title, he held that the tenant used to pay the rent to the landlord after the death of the father of the petitioner, K.N.Ramachandra Iyer and having admitted that the respondent is the landlord, there is no justification for the Appellant to deny the title of the landlord. Aggrieved upon the said order, the tenant has preferred this Revision.