V SHANMUGA KONAR Vs. P SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 3565 of 2001 has been filed by one Shanmuga Konar who is the unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority has preferred the civil revision petition against the order passed by the Appellate Authority (II Additional Sub Judge) Tirunelveli in R.C.A. No. 39 of 1998 preferred against the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996.

(2.) ORIGINALLY, R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996 was filed by one Ramalakshmi Ammal for eviction of the tenant Shanmuga Konar on three grounds viz., wilful default, committing act of waste and denial of title. After contest, the R.C.O.P. was allowed only on the ground of committing act of waste and the Rent Controller negatived the grounds of wilful default and denial of title.

(3.) AS far as C.R.P. No. 3564 of 2001 is concerned, I am to point out that there is no proof to show that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the tenant Shanmuga Konar and one Subramaniam and that likewise, it is too much on the part of the tenant Shanmuga Konar to say as if the pass book in which the said Subramaniam would make entries for receipt of rents every month has not been returned to the tenant and that too when the tenant Shanmuga Konar has not chosen to take any steps against the said Subramaniam for getting back the pass book. It is also to be noted that the said Subramaniam has given evidence to the effect that the said Ramalakshmi Ammal who is the petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996 is the owner of the building and she only was receiving the rent from the tenant and likewise, it is not the specific conduct of the tenant Shanmuga Konar in R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996 to say as if the said Ramalakshmi Ammal is not the owner of the building and more particularly the very same tenant has given evidence in R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996 that he is not aware about the owner of the building. When that being so the evidence of the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996, it is surprising as to how he has filed this R.C.O.P. No. 112 of 1995 (against the said Subramaniam as respondent/landlord) for deposit of rents. This aspect has been clearly considered by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 12 of 1997 and consequently, he reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller who allowed the tenant to deposit rents.