M V SWAMI Vs. AMEER BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition directed against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on an application filed in H.R.O. No. 96 of 1981, Rent Controller's Court Tirupat-tur by the 1st respondent herein under sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (ii) (e) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1963 (as amended by Act 23 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the case of the 1st respondent, he along with his brother and sister are the owners of the property in the occupation of the petitioner and the petitioner and entered into on agreement of tenancy with the 1st respondent agreeing to pay rest at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. THE 1st respondent stated that the petitioner had committed wilful default in the payment of rents from June, 1981 onwards. Further the petitioner, according to the 1st respondent, had without the consent in writing of the 1st respondent, sublet the property let out to him to the 2n d respondent herein for running a typewriting institute. A notice was sent to the petitioner bringing to his notice wilful default as well as the subletting and demanding vacant possession but the petitioner did not send any reply at all. It was under these circumstances that the first respondent prayed for an order of eviction.

(2.) IN his counter, the petitioner resisted the application on the ground that the 1st respondent alone was not competent to maintain the application for eviction, that the tenancy commenced under the father of the 1st respondent and after his death, the rents had been paid to the first respondent regularly, that there was no wilful default in the payment of the rents, that if at all the rents had remained unpaid from 1st November, 1981 and even in respect of that, when the rents were tendered against a demand for receipt' there was a refusal to issue receipt and therefore, the rent from 1st November, 1981 onwards upto 31st May, 1982 was deposited into court on 29th June, 1982 and that the subletting was not true and therefore the eviction petition should be dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner first contended that the authorities below had not adverted to the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the application for eviction and that would vitiate the order. According to the learned counsel, even as per the case of the 1st respondent. In his application for eviction, his brother and sister were co-owners of the property tenanted in favour of the petitioner and since they have not joined in the application for eviction, it would not be open to the 1st respondent alone as one of the co-owners to institute proceedings seeking an order for eviction. Reliance in this connection was also placed by the learned counsel upon the decision in A. Alagiyanathan v. N. Swami-natha Pillai 1 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner had admitted the payment of rents by him to the 1st respondent and it would therefore be not open to the petitioner to urge that the non-joining of the brother and the sister of the 1st respondent in the applications for eviction would be fata! to its maintainability. THE learned counsel for the 1st respondeat relied upon Exhibits B-3 and B-4 and the evidence of R.W. 1 to contend that rents had been paid by the petitioner to the 1st respondent.