K R MURUGESAN Vs. CHAIRMAN EX SERVICEMEN WELFARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING failed before both the Authori-ties below, the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, has preferred this civil revision petition.

(2.) THE respondents/landlord herein filed the eviction petition R. C. O. P. No. 74 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vellore on the ground that the petitioner-tenant used the demised building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. THE petition was filed under sec. l0 (2) (ii) (b) of the said Act. Both, the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority, Vellore in R. C. A. No. 6 of 1992 have concurrently held that the petitioner has so used the said building. Admittedly, the petitioner was an ex-servicemen and so the respondents leased out the demised building for running cycle business. THEre was a raid by the prohibition wing of the police of the abovesaid building on 24. 8. 1989 and 173 bottles of Indian made foreign liquor were seized from the building and in the subsequent police proceedings, the petitioner admitted his guilt in having stored the liquor bottles in the abovesaid building. A fine was levied on him and he paid the same. That is borne out by Ex. A-3 document dated 25. 8. 1989. That apart by Ex. A-2 letter dated 25. 9. 1989 by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent he has admitted the above facts and pleaded thus: Primarily based on these two documents Exs. A-3 and A-2 the Authorities below have come to the conclusion that the abovesaid liquor bottles were stored in the petition-building. Further, the explanation offered by the petitioner that the abovesaid liquor bottles were temporarily kept in the said building on behalf of ex-servicemen who come to purchase such liquor from the adjacent godown, was not believed by the Authorities below. As per the relevant rules, each ex-serviceman was allowed to have supply of only five bottles and there is no scope in that context for the petitioner to have stored as many as 173 bottles, even as per the explanation. This explanation was not accepted also because the petitioner did not examine any of such ex-servicemen, who allegedly left liquor bottles in the custody of the petitioner. Further, even before the Authorities below, the argument of the petitioners was that the abovesaid raid was only a solitary instance wherein the petitioner was found to possess the abovesaid liquor bottles and that on that footing, it could not be held that the building was used for liquor trade. For this argument Rathnam naicker v. Mani Naicker, (1955)1 M. L. J. 2 (S. N.), was also relied on. This argument was also considered and the Authorities below have negatived the said contention on the footing that the facts in the said case were different.

(3.) THEREFORE, there is no merit in this civil revision petition and hence, it is not admitted, but dismissed. Time for vacating three months. .