M K NATESA MUDALIAR Vs. P SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants are the revision petitioners. The landlord filed R. C. O. P. No. 165 of 1978 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Salem, for eviction of the tenants on three grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent for the months of July, August and September, 1978 under section 10 (2) (i) of Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 (2) for own occupation for the business of the landlord under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the said Act, and (3) requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction under section 14 (1) (b) of the said Act. The building is a non-residential building and the landlord had purchased the the building on 15th March, 1978 under the original of Exhibit B-2. The defence raised by the tenants was that because there was a competition between the landlord and the tenants in the purchase of the building from the previous owner and because there was no immediate reply from the landlord confirming the purchase of the demised building from the previous owner and no stamped receipt was issued by the landlord for the rents remitted for the months of March, April and May, the tenant waited for some months, that immediately after the receipt of the notice from the landlord, the tenants sent a cheque for Rs. 600 towards the rents due not only for September, but also for October, on 28th October, 1978 and that, therefore, there was no wilful default. So far as the other two grounds are concerned, the defence was that the requirement of the landlord is not true and bona fide.

(2.) On the side of the landlord, the landlord and his brother have been examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2 and on the side of the tenants in addition to the tenant, one Engineer has been examined in order to prove that the condition of the building is quite strong and sturdy and does not require demolition. After considering the evidence adduced on both sides, learned Rent Controller upheld the first two grounds urged by the landlord, namely, wilful default and requirement for own occupation and negatived the third ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction. The tenants preferred C. M. A. No. 27 of 1981 before the appellate authority as against the adverse findings on the first two grounds. It appears that arguments were advanced on the side of the landlord before the appellate authority regarding the third ground also, which was negatived by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, the appellate authority has upheld all the three grounds urged by the landlord. Hence, the tenants are challenging the correctness and legality of the findings of the appellate authority in this revision petition.

(3.) So far as ground Nos. 2 and 3, namely, requirement for own occupation and requirement for demolition and reconstruction are concerned, it is better that they are disposed of in the first instance. In paragraph 4 of the eviction petition, the landlord has simply stated that the petitioner requires the building in question for his personal use and occupation. It is bereft of any of the particulars or details regarding the requirement so that the tenants might meet those details in their counter and the tenants are deprived of setting up the necessary defence regarding the requirement for personal use and occupation. The nature of the business or any business that has been carried on by the landlord, the place of the business of the landlord and the ownership of the building in which the alleged business is carried on by the landlord, have not been mentioned. It is quite vague.