MOHAMED REHMATULLAH Vs. SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the eviction order dated 28.8.1998 and made in R.C.A.No.7 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Court), Tenkasi and which was negatived by the Rent Controller.

(2.) The respondents herein filed R.C.O.P.No.10 of 1987 before the Rent Control (District Munsif) Court, Sankarankoil for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from 1.10.1984 to 28.10.1986 at the rate of Rs.55/- per month and stating that the rent from 1.8.1983 to September 1984 was deposited in the Court. Further, it is stated that to the lawyer notice dated 29.10.1986, the tenant replied on 3.12.1986 and on the date of filing of the petition, the rent for 35 months i.e. from 1.10.1984 to 28.8.1987 to the tune of Rs.1,925/- was due. The petition non-residential premises is also required for own use and occupation of the landlords who are brothers, in that they have been carrying on business in selling betel-nut, coconut and fruits and have been in occupation of the premises bearing door No.74, Swamy Sannathi Street, Sankarankoil Kaspa. Except this, they do not own any other building. In fact, the tenant has let out the premises bearing door No.55 which belongs to him.

(3.) The petition was resisted in the counter admitting the tenancy and stating that he has been in occupation of the petition shop on a monthly rent of Rs.55/- from 1.8.1976 and also paid advance amount of Rs.1,200/- to Pechiappapillai, the father of the landlords and accordingly Pechiappapillai also had given slip (rpl;il) in writing on 29.7.1976. The tenant has been carrying on business in the name of the Ibrahim Chit Fund (firm). Pechiappapillai received the rent till October, 1979 and made endorsement accordingly in the slip (rpl;il) and on the death of Pechiappapillai, the second respondent herein has made endorsement in the slip(rpl;il) for the receipt of the rent till September, 1980 and thereafter, the first respondent herein made endorsement in the slip(rpl;il) about the receipt of the rent till July, 1983. Thereafter, the first respondent herein was not receiving the rent stating that he would receive the rent in lump-sum, when the tenant approached to receive the rent. Finally, they demanded enhanced rent. The sum of Rs.770/- sent towards the rent for the month of August, 1983 to September, 1984 by money order on 24.9.1984 was refused. The tenant caused lawyer notice on 11.10.1984 to name the bank for deposit of rent and no reply was sent by the first respondent herein. The tenant filed R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1984 and deposited the rent into Court which was received by the first respondent herein. Therefore, he has not committed default much-less wilful default in payment of rent. It is denied that the petition shop is required for own use and occupation by the landlords, viz., the respondents herein. The second respondent herein is working in the post-office. The first respondent herein is doing business in selling coconut and fruits. The petition shop, which is situated in Kazhugumalai Road, is not suitable to carry on such business. The respondents herein also own other buildings in Sankarankoil Kaspa. The Rent Control Original Petition is filed only to get higher rent. The requirement of the petition shop for own use and occupation is without bona fide.