B RAMA SUBBA REDDI Vs. P SUBBAYYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the respondents 1 to 8 in the eviction petition, H. R. C. No. 4596 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, XI, Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The respondents herein filed the petition for eviction on two grounds, one under section 10 (2) (i) for wilful default in the payment of rent by the revision petitioners 1 to 5 from September, 1980 to August, 1981 and for the subsequent period and another under section 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Act X of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for having sublet the demised building in favour of respondents 6 to9 in the petition eviction petition without the knowledge and consent of the landlords. After sending a lawyers notice on 3rd September, 1981, terminating the tenancy on the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting which elicited a reply from the first revision petitioner alone respondents 1 to 5 filed eviction petition and the petitioners 1 to 5, as respondents 1 to 5 in the eviction petition filed a common counter stating that the revision petitioners 2 and 5 are not in any way connected with the business carried on in the demised premises, that the first revision petitioner and one Jayarama Reddy were the persons directly involved in the business run under the name B. Nagi Reddy in the demised building, that the revision petitioners, 1, 3, 4, and Jayarama Reddy have been continuing the business of B. Nagi Reddy as proprietory one to the knowledge of the respondents herein, that there was a partnership deed dated 1st January, 1966 between Nagi Reddy and his brother Jayarama Reddy to the knowledge of the father of the respondents herein, that the firm was paying rents of P. N. Surya Rao father of the respondents herein, that after Supya Raos death the respondents herein have deliberately refused to receive the rents from the firm, which necessitated the filing of H. R. C. No, 704 of 1980 by the firm for the permission of the Court for depositing of the rents into the Court, that as Surya Rao, landlord, died on 10th March, 1981 during the pendency of the petitioner, H. R. C. 704 of 1980 the revision petitioners 1, 3, 4 and Jayarama Reddy filed M. P. No 384 of 1981 for impleading the respondents herein as the legal representatives of Surya Rao, that the respondents herein opposed that application and the same was dismissed on 23rd December, 1981, that the Money Orders and Demand Drafts sent to the respondents herein were refused and that the allegation of sub-letting is not true, since the revision petitioners 6 to 8 and another were only employees and coolies of the revision petitioners 1 to 5. The learned Rent Controller has found on point No. 1 for consideration that the individual B. Nagi Reddy is the tenant and not the firm, B. Nagi Reddy, and hence the revision petitioners 1 to 5 alone are the legal representatives of the deceased B. Nagi Reddy on point No. 2 for consideration that the revision petitioners 1 to 5 are guilty of wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent as contended in the eviction petition and on point No. 3 for consideration that the revision petitioners 1 to 5 have sub-let the demised building in favour of respondents 6 to 9 in the eviction petition without the written consent of the respondents herein. Accordingly the eviction was ordered by the learned Kent Controller.

(2.) The revision petitioners filed R. C. A. No. 1026 of 1982 before the appellate authority without success and the appellate authority has confirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) The two points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether B. Nagi Reddy took lease of the demised building in his individual capacity for his individual business and if so, whether the revision petitioners 1 to 5 are not legal representatives as defined in section 2(8) of the act. (2) Whether the sub-letting in favour of respondents 6 to 9 in the eviction petition without the written consent of the landlord is not true"