LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-228

S LOGANATHAN Vs. MANMAL SUR

Decided On July 11, 2005
S.LOGANATHAN Appellant
V/S
MANMAL SUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the tenant, who was successful before the rent controller but lost his case before the rent control appellate authority. THE appellate authority reversed the eviction order of the rent controller on three grounds viz., the tenant/revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of July, 1996 to September, 1996; the revision petitioner is using the premises other than the purpose for which it was leased to and that the requirement of the premises by the landlord for the purpose of parking his car is bona fide. Such order of the appellate authority is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) THE respondent is the landlord for the building in door No.37, Bangaru Reddy Street, Ayanavaram. THE revision petitioner is the tenant in a portion of that building for monthly rent of Rs.600, which according to the landlord is for residential purpose. It is further the case of the landlord that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of July, 1996 to September, 1996. THE landlord caused lawyer's notice on 2.9.1996. After the said notice, the tenant sent cheque for Rs.1800 towards rent for the months of April, 1996 to June, 1996. THEreafter the tenant has committed default in payment of rent wilfully from July, 1996 to September, 1996. According to the landlord, the petition premises was let out to the tenant for residential purpose but he is using the same for non-residential purpose and running a grocery shop in the name and style of Shanthi stores without obtaining permission of the landlord. THE petition premises is bona fide required to park the car of the landlord.

(3.) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord that as per the agreement under Ex.P-5, the premises was let out only for residential purpose. Since the tenant is admittedly carrying on business and using the premises other than the purpose for which it was let out, the tenant has to vacate the premises.