N RAJESWARI Vs. S P PALANIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Erode, reversing the order of the Rent Controller (Addl. Dist. Munsif), Erode, dismissing the application of the landlords for eviction of the tenants-respondents.

(2.) The petition for eviction was filed by the admitted landlord, Namachivayam, for the eviction of the respondents under the provisions of section 10 (2) (ii) (a), (b) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), from premises door No. 262 Brough Road, Erode. The said premises was leased out to respondents 1 and 2 on 17thOctober, 1969, by the landlord Namachivayam, for a period of six years on a monthly rental of Rs. 500.00 for running a a printing press. The rent was payable on the first of every Tamil Month. On 11th August 1975 the landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 72 of 1975 before the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenants-respondents 1 and 2, and the sub-tenants-respondents 3 to 5, inducted by respondents 1 and 2, on the grounds of (i) sub-letting without the consent of the landlord (ii) putting the building to a different use from the one for which is was let out and (iii) committing acts of waste. The petition for eviction was filed after a notice dated 24th June, 1975 terminating the tenancy. Respondents 1 and 2 contested the proceedings denying the allegations of sub-letting, putting the premises to a different use and acts of waste. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings Namachivayam, the original owner, died, and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 11.

(3.) During the pendency of the proceedings respondents 1 and 2 purchased a 11/60 share in the property from the third petitioner, Arunachalam, by a registered sale deed dated 23th October, 1977 (Exhibit B-14). Based on this purchase, respondents 1 and 2 contended that by virtue of this purchase they had become co-owners and hence were not liable to be evicted from the premises.