RUKMANI AMMAL Vs. N PANDURANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present civil revision is directed against the order passed by the Principal District Court, Pondicherry, in an appeal arising out of a Rent Control Proceedings.

(2.) THE Rent Control Proceedings had been initiated by the present petitioner, who has been found to be the landlady in respect of the disputed premises. It is also not disputed that initially one Narasimalu Chettiar, the father of the present respondent, was the tenant in respect of the premises and he was carrying on his business in such premises. After the death of the aforesaid Narasimalu Chettiar, the present respondent was carrying on his business in paddy and rice on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 600/ -. According to the petitioner, he was very irregular in payment of rent and he had defaulted to pay rent for the months of July and August, 1990. An Advocate's notice was issued to the respondent and thereafter proceeding for eviction was initiated on the ground that the tenant had wilfully defaulted to pay rent. It was also averred that the premises in question were required for the use of the son of the petitioner for carrying on his business. It was indicated that neither the landlady nor her son was in possession of any non-residential premises within Pondicherry for the purpose of carrying on such business.

(3.) IN the counter filed, the respondent pleaded that rent was being paid regularly and there was no default in payment for the months of July and August, 1990. It was pleaded that his father died in the year 1983, leaving his four sons as his legal heirs, but only the respondent was impleaded and the other three sons were not impleaded as respondents. It was further claimed that he was paying rent on behalf of his brothers to one Subburaman, who was issuing receipts in the name of Narasimalu Chettiar and sons, but subsequently he started issuing receipts only in the name of the respondent. The allegation regarding wilful default and bonafide requirement were also denied.