R.M.SETHURAMAN Vs. R.RAGHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the tenant aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 22.11.2011 passed in R.C.A. No. 1 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2010 passed in R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 2008 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif) Krishnagiri.

(2.) The first respondent herein has filed R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 2008 under Section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called as The Act, for evicting the tenants on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and for owners own use and occupation. According to the first respondent herein, the petition mentioned property was let out to tenants 19 years back and the tenancy was oral. Since the tenants did not pay the rent inspite of many reminders made by the erstwhile owner of the petition mentioned property, they did not pay the rent. The tenants also filed O.S. No. 293 of 2001 against the erstwhile owner of the petition mentioned property and are squatting on the property without paying the rent. In those circumstances, the erstwhile owner of the petition mentioned property decided to dispose of the property to the first respondent herein. Accordingly, on 21.04.2008, the petition mentioned property was purchased by the first respondent herein by a registered sale deed. On purchase, the first respondent intimated the tenants to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.51,200/- to the erstwhile owner of the petition mentioned property and also to vacate the house and handover vacant possession to him. On 10.05.2008, the first respondent, along with the erstwhile owner of the petition mentioned property namely Kabali, have sent a legal notice to the revision petitioner herein, who according to them was in actual possession of the house, and demanded the arrears of rent and also to vacate the same. On receipt of the notice dated 10.05.2008, a reply dated 29.05.2008 was sent falsely claiming that the erstwhile owner Kabali has to pay him some amount and that he is not liable to pay any arrears of rent, as claimed. Under those circumstances, the first respondent herein has filed RCOP No. 6 of 2008 before the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) A counter affidavit was filed before the learned Rent Controller by the revision petitioner herein by denying the entire allegations made in RCOP No. 6 of 2008. It was also contended that the first respondent herein cannot demand him to pay the rental arrears, which he is liable to pay the erstwhile owner Kabali for a period of five months.