N. RAMALINGAM Vs. SELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Erode dated 05.10.2012 made in C.F.R. No. 11482 of 2012 in R.C.O.P. No. 29 of 2011.

(2.) THE first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. Both of them through their Power of Attorney Mr. P.Jaganathan filed a petition for eviction of the respondent herein from a non -residential portion in Door No. 90, Gandhiji Road, Erode in which the respondent herein is running an Electrical shop as a tenant. The eviction petition came to be filed for evicting the respondent herein on the ground of willful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and to direct the respondent to put the petitioners in possession of the building under Section 10(3)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

(3.) THE respondent chose to contest the R.C.O.P by filing a counter containing the sentence wise denial of the petition averments. In addition to the denial of each and every allegation made in the petition, the respondent had also contended in the counter statement that though the sale deed in favour of the petitioners was dated 14.02.2010, the same was registered after 3 months, namely on 10.05.2010; that the sale deed contained recitals as if actual physical possession of the property conveyed under the sale deed was delivered to the purchasers therein on the date of alleged sale deed itself; that the said sale deed with such recitals came to be executed with the sole aim of evicting the respondent by force without adopting due process of law and that since the petitioners could not achieve the said goal, they came forward with the eviction petition with false averments. Though the respondent, in the earlier paragraphs, namely paragraphs Nos. 1 to 4, of the counter statement would have denied even his status as a tenant in respect of the petition premises, in the subsequent paragraphs, he has admitted that he is running a Electrical shop in the petition premises. However, he contended that the actual Door No. is "90" and not "93" as contended in the eviction petition. Further averments made in the counter statement are that he became a tenant in respect of the petition premises about three years prior to the date of filing of his counter statement under Arjun Manradiar; that at the inception of tenancy, he paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/ -; that the contractual rent was Rs. 2,000/ - per month and not Rs. 4,000/ - per month as contended by the petitioners; that the respondent was making payment of rent regularly to Arjun Manradiar without any arrears; that therefore there was no willful default and that the denial of title was a bonafide one. Based on the averments found in the counter statement, he had prayed for the dismissal of the R.C.O.P.