B MADASAMY Vs. S SIVAKAMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the eviction order of the learned Rent Controller as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent from 4.11.1987 to 30.9.1990 and the petition shop is required for the purpose of additional accommodation by the respondent/landlady.

(2.) The respondent herein filed the Rent Control Original Petition that she is the owner of the petition shop bearing door No.58/1 in Gin Factory Road, Tuticorin, in view of the purchase as per sale deed dated 4.11.1987. She has also purchased the adjacent property bearing door No.58/2 for the purpose of carrying on business by her and her husband. The respondent herein purchased both the buildings as the building bearing door No.58/2 was not sufficient for their business and to extend the business in the petition building also. After purchase, the tenant agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.175/- per month and also to vacate the petition premises sooner when she apprised the fact that the petition shop is required for additional accommodation by her and her husband to carry on business run in the adjacent shop bearing door No.58/2. The tenant failed to pay the rent as agreed from 4.11.1987, the date of purchase till 30.9.1990 to the tune of Rs.6,107.50 and the tenant sent only Rs.150/- by money order on 26.2.1990 and the same was returned, in that it was stated in the money order coupon that the said rent sent by money order was for three months covering the period of November, 1989 to January, 1990. The tenant has filed R.C.O.P.No.13 of 1990 for depositing the rent into Court stating the door number of the shop is 158/2, Gin Factory Road, Tuticorin which premises does not belong to the landlady. If the wall in between the shops bearing door Nos.58/1 and 58/2 is removed, it can be used as one building and so, the petition shop bearing door No.58/1 is required for additional accommodation for the business of the landlady and her husband. The tenant is having the shop in the opposite side with wooden plants and as such, if the tenant is vacated from the petition shop, no hardship will be caused to him.

(3.) The tenant resisted the petition by filing counter stating that the rent is only Rs.50/- per month. Since the landlady refused to receive the rent sent by money order, he has filed R.C.O.P.No.13 of 1990 for depositing the rent into Court. It is denied that the petition shop would require for additional accommodation for the purpose of business carried on by the landlady and her husband. It is also denied that the tenant is carrying on business on the opposite side after vacating the petition shop.