MOHAMED ROWTHER Vs. S S RAJALINGA RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as �the Act') is the petitioner is this civil revision petition against the concurrent eviction order passed, one by the Appellate Authority in R. C. A. No. 1 of 1993 and another by the Rent Controller in R. C. O. P. No. 21 of 1989.

(2.) THE Rent Controller passed the eviction order on three different grounds, viz. , (1) wilful default for a period of 11 months from september, 1988 in the payment of monthly rents. (under Sec. l0 (2) (i) of the Act, (2) the respondents landlords bona fide require the petition building for demolition and reconstruction (under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act, and (3) denial of title of the landlords with reference to the superstructure on the petition-site. (No doubt in the R. C. O. P. the respondents- landlords have not specifically raised this ground of denial of title, but as against the plea of the landlords that both the site and superstructure were leased out to the petitioner, the tenant claimed that only site was leased out to him and the superstructure was his. THE Rent Controller held that both the land and the superstructure were together leased out to the petitioner. In this connection only the Rent controller held that there was denial of title of the respondents in respect of the abovesaid superstructure and that the said denial was held to be not a bona fide one.

(3.) IN view of my concurrence with both the Authorities below regardINg the abovesaid wilful default question, there is actually no necessity to deal with the other poINts raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Anyway, I shall touch upon them also. In so far as the question regardINg the ownership of superstructure, it is clear from Ex. R-1, the rental deed dated 19. 1. 1983 between the parties that what has been leased out is both land and superstructure thereon, and if that is so, apart from other thINgs, sec. 92 of the Evidence Act would be a bar for the tenant to contend differential as stated above. Further, it is also IN evidence that the property tax for the superstructures was also paid to the landlords and this has been admitted also by R. W. 1 and it is also borne out by Ex. P-9.