R PARVATHI Vs. KALIYAPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlords before the Courts below are the revision petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal of the Rent Control Appeal filed by the landlords challenging the correctness of the dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition filed for eviction of the respondent / tenant on the grounds of willful default in payment of rent and for demolition and reconstruction.

(2.) The landlords as petitioners filed the Rent Control Original Petition stating that the petition premises bearing Door No. 6 Kamakshi Amman Koil Street in Chidambaram Town, originally belonged to one Ranganathan, husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3. The respondent as a tenant took the said property on lease on 10.6.1986 on a monthly rent of Rs.375/-.The respondent / tenant paid rent till March 1995 and on the death of Ranganathan, the petitioners have become owners of the petition premises. The respondent committed default in payment of rent willfully from 01.4.1995 to 31.10.1995. It is stated that the building is a tiled house and the first petitioner wants to settle down at Chidambaram, after demolishing the old house and after putting up a new construction, along with her son and daughter, viz., petitioners 2 and 3. It is further stated that a notice was issued by the petitioners calling upon the respondent / tenant to vacate the petition premises and hand over possession of the same for which the respondent sent a reply notice denying the allegations.In the reply notice, it is stated that he could not pay the rent because one Vaikuntham Pillai, who was acting as the agent of the deceased Ranganathan, did not come and collect the rent. It is also stated that the respondent sent a Demand Draft for Rs. 2625/- towards the rent from April 1995 to October 1995, which was received by the petitioners under protest. On these grounds, the petitioners / landlords sought for eviction of the respondent / tenant from the petition premises.

(3.) The respondent as tenant filed counter stating that the rent was paid to one Vaikuntham Pillai, who was acting as agent of the deceased Ranganathan, that after March 1995, Vaikuntham Pillai did not come and collect the rent and that the petitioners, who were residing at Cuddalore, did not also come and collect the rent. It is stated that the respondent / tenant offered to buy the house when he came to know that the petitioners have proposed to sell the petition premises. The petitioners are owning a plot at Asiriyar Nagar and also another house in Chidambaram Town. It is further stated that on receipt of the notice, the entire rental amount was sent by Demand Draft and there will be no arrears of rent on the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition.The petitioners have no intention to put up new construction after demolishing the existing structure.The respondent / tenant repaired the backyard of the house, which fell down in June 1996 and after such repair work, the petition premises is in good condition. On these grounds, the respondent / tenant sought for dismissal of the petition.