V DHANAM Vs. P SUDHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been brought forth challenging the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, made in R. C. A. No. 41 of 2002 wherein the order of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, in HRCOP No. 68 of 2000, was affirmed by passing an order of eviction of the petitioners herein.

(2.) THE landlord respondent came with an application for eviction of the petitioners herein, the tenants, under Sec. 10 (2) (i) and 10 (vii) of the Pondicherry Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the grounds of wilful default and denial of title. The case of the landlord before the lower Court was that the property originally belonged to the petitioners/tenants; that they sold the same by way of a sale deed dated 3. 6. 1999 for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-; that the said payment was made; but, they could not hand over possession; that they wanted a short accommodation by 10 days; that even then, they could not vacate the property; that they also executed a lease deed agreeing to be in possession for a period of 11 months and hand over possession; that despite the expiry of 11 months, they did not hand over possession; that a notice was issued calling upon them to vacate the premises; that they sent a reply containing false allegations as to the title to the property and denying the landlord and tenant relationship, and under the circumstances, the RCOP came to be filed by the respondent on the grounds stated above.

(3.) THE application was contested vehemently by the petitioners/tenants on the ground that there was no sale at all; that it was only a mortgage; that their signatures were obtained in the stamp papers; that it was not their intention to sell the property; that apart from that, no consideration was paid for the alleged sale transaction; that even the contention of the landlord that Rs. 10,000/- was paid by way of advance at the time of execution of the lease deed is thoroughly false; that there was no lease deed between the parties; that neither the landlord had title to the property, nor there was any landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, and under the circumstances, the application was to be dismissed.