R KRISHNAVENI Vs. A SHANMUGHAVELGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are landlords. They filed Rent Control Original Petition No.143 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur against the first respondent for eviction in respect of the petition shop on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, acts of waste, nuisance, ceased to occupy the petition shop for more than 8 years.

(2.) In the petition it is stated that the petition premises is the South-western portion of door No.8, West Masi Street, Madurai and it belonged to the first revision petitioner's husband and the father of the revision petitioners 2 and 3 and the respondents 2 and 3. The revision petitioners have become owners of the petition shop, since the first revision petitioner's husband Ramanathan had left the family in 1972 and his whereabouts were not known for the past 9 years at the time of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition. The first respondent is a tenant in respect of the petition shop on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. The first respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.663 of 1968 for deposit of rent and it is not known as to whether the rental amount is deposited in that petition. The first respondent is not doing any business in the petition shop and kept the building closed for the past 8 years and as such ceased to occupy the said premises for more than 8 years. In view of such closer, the building also has become damaged and the first respondent also committed acts of waste impairing materially the value or utility of the building on account of ceasing to occupy the building. Further, in front of the building unruly elements assembled and are indulging in unlawful activities causing mental sufferings to the first revision petitioner and her children. The first respondent also has not paid rent for the past several years and as such, he committed wilful default in payment of rent.

(3.) The Rent Control Original petition is opposed in the counter denying that the first respondent ceased to occupy the petition premises and further stating that he is carrying on business in paints under the name and style of Lakshmi Distember Company in the petition shop and he will be absent whenever he leaves for business purpose. The first respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.663 of 1968 for deposit of rent since the first revision petitioner's husband Ramanathan and his father Mahalingam Pillai made claim to receive the rent and in the said petition he is depositing the rent at the rate of Rs.32/- every month, as such he has not committed default, much-less wilful default in payment of rent. The first respondent did nothing to impair the value of the building and also not committed any nuisance. The first respondent is in occupation of the petition shop bearing door No.8-A, West Masi Street, Madurai. The first petitioner's father-in-law late Rm. Mahalingam Pillai executed a Will in favour of his second wife Shenbagathammal, who is also claiming right in the petition shop and so the petition filed by the revision petitioners alone is not maintainable. The first respondent never locked and closed his business for the past 8 years. The first respondent also paid corporation tax upto March, 1982 at the threat of distress warrant and occupier notice and has paid rent upto March, 1982 and only Rs.14.80 is payable for the month of April, 1982. There is no default in payment of rent. The first respondent also filed O.S.No.979 of 1979 in the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town for declaration that the enhancement of tax is illegal and for consequential injunction and the suit also was decreed.