K.SELVARAJ Vs. CAROLINE SOJASINGARAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the concurrent order of eviction passed by both the courts below on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation. The respondent herein is the landlady. She filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry seeking eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation.

(2.) It is her case that the petitioner took the premises on lease from 1st March 2001 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,400/- by paying an advance amount of Rs. 15,000/-. The lease was only for a period of 11 months and a lease deed was also entered into between the parties on 28.2.2001. The demised premises is the only property which belongs to the landlady. After completion of the period of 11 months, the petitioner herein did not vacate nor paid the monthly rent from the month of February 2002. She is residing with her son in a house owned by him. In order to settle down at France, her son sold the said house and therefore she wants the petition premises for her own occupation. Thus, on these two grounds she filed the above petition for eviction.

(3.) The petitioner herein as the respondent therein denied the 'landlord-tenant' relationship. It is his case that the respondent/landlady executed an agreement of sale on 20.10.2001 to sell the petition premises to the petitioner and in pursuant to such sale agreement only, the petitioner entered into the premises and he is in possession and occupation of the same as the agreement holder in terms of the said agreement. It is his further case that the total consideration for sale was fixed as Rs. 6 lakhs out of which he paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as advance to the respondent herein. It is also pleaded by him that he spent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the cost of the repair of the property. Thus, he denied any liability to pay rent and also denied that the landlady's requirement on the ground of owner's occupation is not with any bonafide. He specifically denied the execution of the lease deed dated 28.2.2001.