(1.) The landlord, who lost his case before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the order of eviction of the tenant from the petition non-residential premises made by the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for denial of title without bona fide.
(2.) The revision petitioner/landlord as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition stating that he is the owner of the petition shop in which the respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.175/-. It is further stated that from February 1989 to May 1993, the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent. To the notice caused by the petitioner, the respondent replied that he is in possession of the petition shop as owner in part performance of the alleged agreement of sale and to which, the petitioner replied that the respondent is only a tenant under him. It is stated that no possession was handed over to the respondent pursuant to the alleged agreement of sale. To the notice sent again on 19.12.1990, no reply was sent by the respondent though the notice was received by him. It is further stated that the respondent has denied title of the petitioner as without bona fide. Hence, the petitioner sought for eviction of the respondent / tenant on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and for denial of title without bona fide.
(3.) The Rent Control Original Petition was resisted by the tenant as respondent by filing counter wherein it is stated that he is in possession of the petition shop only in his capacity as an agreement holder pursuant to agreement of sale dated 12.9.1988 entered into between him and the petitioner / landlord and that the petitioner agreed to sell the property to the respondent for 1-1/2 lakhs and advance of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the petitioner at Madurai on 12.9.1988. In fact, the respondent also purchased general stamps for Rs.9,000/- on 20.9.1988 and drafted the Sale Deed to be executed by the landlord. It is further stated that the petitioner never informed that his sister Chellammal and her son filed O.S. No. 958 of 1988 and obtained ex parte order of interim injunction in I.A. 1478 of 1988 against the him from alienating the petition shop and as such, the petitioner cannot perform his part of the contract in executing the Sale Deed. According to the respondent, the petitioner informed that he could execute the Sale Deed only after disposal of the said suit. It is stated that he also returned the general stamps in which the Sale Deed was drafted and got back Rs. 8100/-. It is further stated that the respondent is no longer a tenant and he ceased to be tenant pursuant to the agreement of sale entered into between him and the petitioner. The respondent caused lawyer's notice dated 07.8.1989 calling upon the petitioner to execute the Sale Deed as per the agreement for which the petitioner replied on 19.8.1989 and also sent a rejoinder. According to the respondent, the tenancy came to an end with the execution of the agreement of sale entered into between him and the petitioner and from the date of agreement, the respondent is in possession as a purchaser in part performance of sale agreement and not as a tenant. On these grounds, the respondent / tenant sought for dismissal of the petition.