RENGAMMAL Vs. A RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the unsuccessful landlady before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, who allowed the Rent Control Appeal filed against the eviction ordered by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also for denial of title.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition under section 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming that she is the owner of the petition residential premises bearing S.L.C.No.350, K.K.Nagar, Madurai Town and further stating that the respondent is the tenant in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The landlady's husband G. Alagarsamy Naidu was the original allottee for the petition premises from the Housing Board and after his death on 27.11.1989 the loan account was transferred from the name of her husband to her name. The respondent committed default in payment of rent from September, 1989 onwards. The landlady has paid the entire loan amount to the Housing Board in October, 1990. As requested by the respondent, who is closely related to the landlady's husband, she signed in the blank non-judicial stamp papers towards final settlement of the loan payable to the Housing Board. Thereafter, the respondent has been evading the payment of arrears of rent. He has also sent a letter to the landlady on 5.12.1990 that she obtained Rs.1,000/- to sell the petition property for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and seeking to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale price of Rs.49,000/-. The said agreement of sale and the receipt of Rs.1,000/- by way of advance have been denied. There is no necessity for the landlady to sell the petition property for Rs.50,000/- which is worth about more than Rs.2,00,000/-. To the lawyer notice issued on 10.1.1991, the tenant replied on 28.2.1991 that he became the tenant from 1976 onwards though the landlady's husband got title only from 1978. The respondent has not paid the arrears of rent for 5 months from November, 1990 to March, 1991 and hence the revision petitioner has filed the R.C.O.P. on 14.3.1991 seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and for denial of title.

(3.) The petition was opposed in the counter denying the tenancy relationship and stating that the landlady's husband Alagarsamy, on the allotment of the house by the Housing Board, requested him to occupy the house by paying Rs.10,000/- as initial amount and by paying dues in instalments to the Housing Board. Accordingly, the respondent paid the instalments to the Housing Board for the allotment of the said house. As such, the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the petition house from 1977 onwards as owner of the house. After the death of the revision petitioner's husband, she came in 1990 and requested to pay some lump-sum amount. He also agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- in the presence of panchayatars on 3.10.1990 and paid Rs.1,000/- and agreed to pay the balance amount within three months. He is not in occupation of the petition premises as a tenant and by paying rents. It is denied that the revision petitioner handed over money to him to pay the instalments to the Housing Board continuously. An agreement was also entered into on 3.10.1990 as stated above. The counter was filed on 12.12.1991.