BHOGILAL M DAVAY Vs. S R SUBRAMANIA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition filed against the order of the Rent Controller, Madras, in H. R. C. No..2365 of 1951 and confirmed by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in H. R. A. No. 541 of 1951.

(2.) The facts of this case can be easily followed if we take on hand the blue-print annexed to this judgment for reference.

(3.) The premises No. 6, Samudra Mudali Street, P. T. Madras, belongs to the Tawker Charities. The petitioner before us Bhogilal M. Davey has been occupying a major portion of the premises while the respondent S. R. Subramania Aiyar has been occupying a room in the back portion of the premises. The Managing Trustee of the charities applied to the High Court for sanction to grant a lease to the petitioner of the entire premises for a period of thirty years. The High Court by its order permitted the grant of the lease to the petitioner for a period of 25 years on his investing a sum of Rs. 8756 for effecting improvements to the premises under the supervision of the Trustee and on his agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 65. On 24-2-1951, the Managing Trustee accordingly executed the lease deed Ex. P-2 in favour of the petitioner herein, in which it was provided that the appellant was to spend no less than Rs. 8000 within a period of one year for the improvement of this building. The last covenant in the lease was that the existing lease on the property shall be deemed to be determined as and from the date of Ex. P-2 and the petitioner himself should take all such steps as may be necessary and permissible in law to evict the tenant in the back portion of the premises. On 25-2-1951 the Managing Trustee gave notice to the respondent calling upon him to attorn to the petitioner as a direct tenant from 1-3-51. The respondent has been called upon to vacate the portion by the end of March 1051 both by the Managing trustee as well as by the petitioner. The respondent has refused to vacate and also, instead of paying the rents to the petitioner, has been sending money orders to the Managing trustee which have been refused and what is more he has been preparing and selling Iddlis in that portion. It is common ground that the portion occupied by this respondent is dilapidated and has got to be reconstructed and in fact the reconstruction of which was the motivating factor for the Trust to give a long term lease to the petitioner.