V SUBRAMANIAN Vs. J VENKATRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant before the learned Rent Controller, who ordered eviction from the petition residential premises on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and that the premises is required bona fide for own use and occupation of the landlords, and who also lost the case before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in respect of the eviction ordered on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The respondents, who are brothers, filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction on three grounds, viz., on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month from June, 1986 to January, 1987, that the premises is required bona fide for own use and occupation by the landlords and that the petition premises is also required bona fide for demolition and reconstruction. They have claimed that the petition premises was allotted to their share pursuant to partition arrangement between them and their another brother Sundararajan.

(3.) The revision petitioner/tenant challenged the petition on the ground that the quantum of rent is Rs.130/- per month. Further, according to him he has been paying the current consumption charges in respect of the portion in the same building and occupied by one Sundararajan, who is the brother of the landlords and deducting such charges he has been paying the rent to the second respondent herein. He paid rent for the month of October, 1986 and when the rent for the month of November, 1986 was tendered it was refused by the second respondent. Hence, the rent for the month of November, 1986 was sent deducting the current consumption charges of Rs.25/- by money order, which was refused and returned by the second respondent herein as well the rent sent on 16.1.1987 deducting Rs.37.15 towards current consumption charges by the second respondent herein. The revision petitioner sent notice-dated 27.1.1987 to the second respondent herein to name the bank to deposit the rent. The landlords caused notice on 21.1.1987 to which a reply was sent to the landlords by the revision petitioner. The landlords were not in the habit of issuing rental receipts. The partition arrangement between brothers and allotment of the petition premises to the share of the respondents herein s disputed as well the bona fide requirement of the petition premises for demolition and reconstruction.