S MAHABOOB SHERIFF DIED Vs. ABDUL KHUDOOS DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in R. C. A. No. 26 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Subordinate judge, Vellore (Appellate Authority), in which the appellate authority had confirmed the order passed in R. C. O. P. No. 89 of 1979 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vellore (Rent Controller ).

(2.) SHORT facts are: The first respondent has filed a petition for eviction under Sec. 10 (3) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960 for wilful default in payment of rent. It is the case of the respondents that there was a written lease agreement between the parties dated 1. 12. 1975. As per the deed, the tenant has to pay monthly rent of Rs. 150 and that the tenancy is according to English calendar month. The tenant was highly irregular in payment of rent and the total outstanding amount towards arrears of rent is Rs. 3,175. The default is wilful. Hence, the petition.

(3.) BEARING this in mind, I shall now consider the evidence available in this case to examine the question as to whether the petitioner would fall within the category of a person receiving rent, merely as an agent of the landlord. In this case, as per part 1 of the petition, there is a written lease agreement between the parties herein dated 1. 12. 1975. This fact has not been denied by the petitioners herein. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the respondent herein met him and informed on 1. 12. 1975 that he had purchased the house from Fareed Khan and that the tenant should pay Rs. 150 as rent. It was further submitted that the tenant/ petitioner did not agree for the same and so, the matter was left in a nebulous stage. Apart from that, there is no specific denial of the positive allegation made in paragraph 1 of the petition that there was a written lease agreement between the parties dated 1. 12. 1975. In evidence, written lease agreement is produced and marked as Ex. A-5. In it there is a recital that the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 150 per mensem. Furthermore it is to be noted that it was entered into between the first petitioner and the first respondent. Ex. A-3 is the letter written by the petitioner to the respondent wherein it is stated that the former owner of the premises had introduced the respondent as the vendor of the house with effect from 1. 12. 1975 under an agreement that an agreement had been executed to that effect, that a sum of Rs. 150 has been refixed as monthly rent for the house which the tenant occupy and that a sum of Rs. 300 has been paid to the respondent herein on the same day, on the basis of the said agreement, as advance. This letter would again confirm Ex. A-5 agreement. Though, the petitioner herein would deny it, the signature in the letter was found to be that of the petitioner herein. This finding of fact is not disputed before me. Exs. A-3 and A-5 would show two things. One is, the petitioner herein has entered into an agreement with the respondent with regard to the payment of rent for the suit premises. Second this is, the rent agreed was Rs. 150.