A PETHAPERUMAL Vs. VETRI SELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 20/2/2001 passed by the District Munsif, Nannilam made in I. A. No. 11 of 2001 in O. S. No. 65 of 2000, allowing the Petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C. P. C, ordering impleading of the Respondents 1 and 2. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) O. S. NO. 65 of 2001:- The Defendant ? Indira is said to be the Tenant under the Plaintiff for the Suit House in Door NO. 33 in Nallamangudi Village, Nannilam Taluk. Case of the Plaintiff is that she became the Tenant under the Plaintiff on 1/2/1984. On 1/2/1984, there was Oral Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the Lease. Thereafter, the rent was steadily increased and from 1/2/1995 the Defendant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month as rent. The Defendant has not paid the rent. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed R. C. O. P. No. 7 of 2004 for vacating the Defendant, which was ordered. As per the order in E. P. NO. 22 of 1998, possession of the demised property was also delivered to the Plaintiff on 21/7/1999. The Plaintiff has filed this Suit for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 10,800/-, which is payable from 1/2/1995.

(3.) THE Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that she was permitted by late Manickam Udayar to reside in the Suit House on a rent of Rs. 200/ -. From 1995, she has paid the rent to Manickam Udayar till he was alive. Subsequent to the death of Manickam Udayar, rent was paid to Wife of Manickam Udayar ? Vetriselvi and there was no arrears as alleged in the Plaint. Since there was no agreement to pay rent to the Plaintiff, the Suit claim by the Plaintiff is unsustainable. The Defendant has filed the Suit for Specific Performance in O. S. No. 77 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nannilam. The Eviction Petition in R. C. O. P. No. 7 of 2004 was the counter blast to the Suit for Specific Performance. The Defendant's Husband has purchased House in the same Street and the Defendant and her family moved to that house in February 1998 itself. At the time of vacating, the Defendant has delivered possession of the Suit Property to the Wife of Manickam Udayar. Manickam Udayar is none other than the Brother of the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not prosecute R. C. O. P. No. 7 of 1996 and she was set exparte. The Plaintiff is not liable to pay any amount as claimed in the Plaint. The Wife and Daughter of Manickam Udayar have filed the Suit for Partition in O. S. No. 48 of 1999 and they are necessary parties to the present Suit.