RUPALOCHANI SARASWATHIAMMAL Vs. SUNDARANARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these revisions, the correctness of the, order of eviction passed against the petitioners in R. C. O. P. 106 of 1974 and 78 of 1977, by the Rent Controller, Salem, and confirmed in, C. M. A. 20 and 21 of 1981 by the Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Salem, is questioned. The facts may now be briefly stated. The first respondent in these revision petitions is the owner of the properties forming the subject matter of these revisions. On 29-9-1965, a lease in favour of the second respondent herein for a non-residential purpose, namely, for the purpose of running an X-ray clinic on a monthly rental of Rs. 150/- was given in, respect of one of the items. Again on 1-4-1966, a lease was granted to the second respondent herein on a monthly rental of Rs. 25/- for non-residential purposes, in respect of another item. In so far as the lease dated 29-9-1965 is concerned, it was specifically granted only for the running of an X-ray clinic. There was also a prohibition regarding the subletting of the premises. In the subsequent lease of 1-4-1966, the, premises let out was described as a shop and the period of letting was 4 years and 8 months and subletting was prohibited. The two items are situate contiguously and really form one block. Even after the expiry of the period under the lease deeds dated 29-9-1965 and 1-4-1966, the second respondent was allowed to continue in the premises on the same terms. The first petitioner is the wife of the second respondent and the second and third petitioners are the sons of the second respondent. Misunderstandings and disputes having arises between the second respondent on the one hand and the petitioners on the other, the second respondent executed a settlement deed on 19-1-1972 in respect of the X-ray clinic, among other items of Properties. According to the first respondent the execution of the settlement dated on 19-1-1972, by the second respondent in favour of the Petitioners was not known to him until the receipt of a notice dated 22-1-1974, by him from the first petitioner. Claiming that the transfer of possession of the premises where the X-ray clinic was situate by the second respondent in favour of the petitioners without his knowledge and consent and a transfer in turn by the petitioners in favour of the third respondent in the revisions would amount to subletting, that the petitioners had converted the premises in their occupation for purposes of residence without his consent been also been using it for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out and that the Petitioners had also committed wilful default in the payment of rents from November., 1973 till May, 1974, the first respondent filed R. C. O. P. 106 of 1974 Praying fox an order of eviction against the petitioners herein and the second and third respondents as well.

(2.) Though initially the second respondent stated in his counter that he continued as a tenant even after the settlement deed by paying the rent to the first respondent and that, there was no wilful default or subletting or conversion of the building for a different user, he remained exparte at the time of the enquiry. To the counter filed on behalf of the petitioners, they contended that the second respondent was using the premises for residential as welt as nonresidential purposes, that after the settlement by the second respondent in favour of the petitioners on 19-1-1972, the first petitioner was paying the rent to the first respondent and that under those circumstances there was no subletting by the second respondent in favour of the Petitioners, that the petitioners had leased only the machineries to the third respondent and not the premises, that the third respondent had also surrendered, possession of the machineries even on 23-4-1974, that there Was no default or wilful default in the payment of rents and that the different user of the premises is not true and, therefore no ground was established for evicting the petitioners.

(3.) On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that though there was no wilful default in the payment of rents, yet, subletting without the consent of the landlord and the user of the Premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out had been established. On, this conclusion, an order for eviction was passed against the petitioners. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners preferred an appeal in C. M. A. 20 of 1981 to the Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem).On a reappraisal of the evidence ,the Appellate Authority concurred with the conclusions of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. It is the correctness of this that is challenged in C. R. P. No. 727 of 1982.