V D MURUGESAN Vs. V RAJ MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed by the Rent Controller, Mayiladuthurai in R. C. O. P. No. 62 of 1983 and which was confirmed by the appellate authority of Mayiladuthurai on the ground that the tenant has sub-let the premises, has come forward with this revision.

(2.) THE landlord has filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default under Sec. l0 (2) (i), requirement of the premises for own use and occupation under Sec. 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and on the ground of subletting without his consent. As far as the ground of wilful default and requirement of the premises for own use and occupation are concerned, the petition has been dismissed by the Rent Controller and there is no appeal against the said order. On the ground of sub-letting, the petitioner in his petition has stated as follows:'the respondent is not personally residing in the premises. He appears to have permitted some third party to reside in the same. Though the respondent would claim the occupant to be a family member, the said assertion, is not correct.'THE respondent in his counter as against this allegation, has contended as follows: THE ground that the respondent is not residing there is incorrect. THE respondent his brother's wife and family members are residing there. THE respondents children are having school education at Mayiladuthurai Town. THE plea as if the respondent has sub-let the premises to third party is incorrect.

(3.) THE Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have come to the conclusion that it is an after-thought of the respondent to contend that his brother's wife is residing with him in view of the interlineation made in the counter in which the word "brother's" is written by the respondent between the words "his" and wife". THE writing of the word "brother's" between the two words'his'and'wife'in the counter need not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that it is an after-thought of the respondent to state in the counter that his brother's wife is residing with him in view of the fact that it is his specific case that the allegation that he is not personally residing there is incorrect.