RAMALU NAIDU Vs. N.R. RAJARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decretal order passed in R.C.A. No.81 of 2007, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the fair and decretal order passed in R.C.O.P. No.22 of 2002, on the file of the Rent Controller, I Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy.

(2.) THE tenants are the petitioners and the respondents are the landlords. The respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P. No.22 of 2002 for eviction on the ground of willful default, owners' occupation and sub -letting. It is a case of the landlords that the petition property was let out to one S.P. Govindarajulu Naidu on a monthly rent of Rs.700/ -p.m. Thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs.850/ - per month. After the death of Govindarajulu Naidu, the first petitioner was not in the habit of paying the rent regularly. From the month of March 1997, the first petitioner willfully defaulted from paying the rent. On 06.01.1999, the first petitioner sent an amount of Rs.17,850/ - through a demand draft said to be the rent from 15.04.1997 to 05.12.1998.

(3.) AFTER the filing of the suit, the landlords came to know that the first petitioner has inducted the second petitioner in the premises under the guise that it is a partnership firm, in which he is one of the partners. The induction of the firm in the property without the consent of the landlords amount to sub -letting of the premises. On 13.09.1999, an amount of Rs. 6,800/ - was sent through a demand draft along with a covering letter. The demand draft was returned by the landlords because it was sent on behalf of the second petitioner firm and not by the first petitioner. Thereafter on 06.04.2001, the first petitioner in the capacity as the partner of the second petitioner has sent notice through his advocate calling upon the landlords to specify a bank account to deposit the rent. Since the second petitioner is not a lawful tenant, the landlords had not sent any reply. Further the landlords require the premises for their own occupation because their family is going to start their family business at Trichy. In these circumstances, the landlords filed R.C.O.P. for eviction on the ground of willful default, sub -letting and owners' occupation.