POORNA THAYAMMAL Vs. Y ANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above revision petitions are preferred by the land owner. CRP No.2625 of 1997 is directed against the orders of both the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller, Chennai in RCA No.61 of 1994 and RCOP No.970 of 1991 rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction on ground of wilful default and unauthorised subletting. CRP No.2626 of 1997 is directed against the orders in RCA No.60 of 1994 and RCOP No.2500 of 1991 allowing the petition filed by the tenant under Section 8(5) Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 seeking permission to deposit the rent in Court.

(2.) In RC OP No.970 of 1991, the landlord contended as follows: While the first petitioner is the owner of the premises/shop, the second petitioner is her husband who was collecting the rents. The property was let out to the first respondent for non-residential purpose for running a laundry shop by name "Swan Laundry" on monthly rent of Rs.500/- and Rs.7/- towards water charges. According to the petitioners, the first respondent was a chronic defaulter from the beginning and she was in arrears of rent from September 1990 to February 1991 amounting to Rs.3,000/-. Inspite of repeated demands, the first respondent was in default, which was wilful. The rent for the month of March 1991 was also due. It is further alleged that the first respondent along with her husband without any prior consent of the petitioner has sublet the premises to the second respondent. A lawyer's notice was sent on 13.12.1990. On 27.12.1990, both the respondents had sent a reply contending false allegations that "Swan Laundry" was a partnership firm on monthly rent of Rs.275/- and that there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the first petitioner and the firm. According to the petitioners, at the time of inception of tenancy, husband of the first respondent had negotiated for the lease and the lease was only for his wife, the first respondent who was the sole proprietrix of Swan Laundry. The firm was not the tenant under the petitioners. As the first respondent had taken a technical objection (in reply) about the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the first petitioner and the first respondent, the second petitioner had also joined in filing of the petition. On 18.2.1991, a pay order was sent by the tenant for Rs.564/- along with covering letter dated 19.2.1991 stating that it was due towards the rent for December 1990 and January 1991 and for water charges. As it was sent by the second respondent and as he was not the tenant to the petitioners, they had returned the same on 23.2.1991 along with a rejoinder. Another reply dated 5.3.1991 was received from the second respondent through counsel making false allegations that the partnership was dissolved and he as the remaining partner was carrying on business. There was no mention about the return of the pay order and it was clear that both the respondents were colluding with each other, according to the petitioner.

(3.) The first respondent remained absent and she was set exparte and a counter statement was filed by the second respondent alone. According to him, the application as framed was not maintainable. He was directly a tenant with the second petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.275/- and Rs.7/- towards water charges. The contention that the monthly rent of Rs.500/- was denied. The tenancy was originally in favour of "Swan Laundry", a partnership firm consisting of two partners. The contention that the property was let out only to the first respondent was denied. The licence for the business continues to be in the name of the 2nd respondent who was a partner of the firm, which was subsequently dissolved and after dissolution, he was the sole propreitor entitled to continue the business on the same terms and conditions. On receipt of the notice dated 13.12.1990, the respondents have duly replied making the position clear. The subsequent rejoinder was also duly replied. There was no basis for the allegation of wilful default. The second respondent had sent the rent and water charges payable to the second petitioner, which was, however, refused by the second petitioner and hence there was no default much less wilful default.