SANTHANAKRISHNAN Vs. R. VENKATARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decreetal order dtd. 16/9/2022 in R.L.T.ANo.24 of 2021 confirming the order dtd. 5/7/2021 passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.96 of 2019.

(2.) The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent / landlord entered into a lease agreement on 24/3/2017 with M/s.Arul Groups Property Management and Arrangement Services Company. There is a clause in the agreement that the sub-tenancy by the company will not be binding on the landlord / respondent. In December 2018 one Mr.B.Arivunambi, Director of the said M/s.Arul Groups Property Management and Arrangement Services Company was arrested for cheating several persons. Thereafter, the revision petitioner herein approached the landlord for entering into a fresh tenancy agreement and accordingly, an agreement for 11 months was agreed from 1/1/2019 for the rent at the rate of Rs.18,000.00 per month without any fixed deposit. Subsequently, the agreement was not renewed and became expired. The respondent filed R.L.T.O.P.No.96 of 2019 seeking eviction on the ground that there is no agreement and the revision petitioner committed default in payment of rent.

(3.) The revision petitioner admitted the fact that he had been inducted as a lessee in the premises by the landlord's agent Mr.B.Arivunambi and he had remitted a sum of Rs.12,50,000.00 as lease amount, which would be payable on the date of vacating the premises. The lease deed was extended by Mr.B.Arivunambi for 3 years from 1/2/2017. The revision petitioner contended that he was not aware of the agreement between the landlord and Mr.B.Arivunambi. However, subsequently, the revision petitioner / tenant entered into an agreement with the respondent / landlord for monthly rent of Rs.18,000.00.