MURUGAN Vs. NOORJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the concurrent findings and consequent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Pondicherry in H.R.C.O.P.No.88 of 1998 and the appellate authority cum III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in R.C.A.No.44 of 2001, the revision petitioners/tenants (being the legal representatives of the original tenant Krishnamurthy) have filed this revision.

(2.) THE landlady, who is the respondent herein, viz., Noorjan filed the H.R.C.O.P. against the tenant Krishnamurthy who is none other than her brother under section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in respect of the house belonging to her bearing door No.2/10, situate in Drowpathiamman Koil Street, Murugapakkam, Pondicherry on the ground of requirement for own occupation. THE same was resisted by the said Krishnamurthy by filing counter to the effect that there was no landlady-tenant relationship between the said Noorjan and Krishnamurthy and in fact, when the property was purchased in the year 1982, a sum of Rs.8000/= towards sale consideration was paid by Krishnamurthy and he is having a share upon the property as a co-sharer or co-owner with Noorjan and that he has also spent Rs.5000/= for effecting repairs in the house and consequently, the H.R.C.O.P. is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) ON perusal of Exs.A6 and A7, I am able to see that they have come into existence on 19.6.1997 and that as per Ex.A6, in pursuance of the advice of some mediators, the husband of Noorjan viz., one Nawab John seems to have paid Rs.2400/= within the stipulated time to Krishnamurthy and he, in turn, assured to vacate the petition mentioned premises before 12.7.1987. Likewise, on perusal of Ex.A7, I am able to see that the said Krishnamurthy has consciously assured to vacate the premises before September 1987 and till then to pay monthly rent of Rs.60/= to Nawab John by describing the nomenclature of the same as rent receipt. The cumulative effect of the recitals made in Exs.A6 and A7, in my view, clearly goes to indicate that there is relationship of landlady tenant between Noorjan and Krishnamurthy and in any event, the said Krishnamurthy has confirmed his status only as a tenant of the petition mentioned premises. In this context, it is more significant to note that there is no recital in both Exs.A6 and A7 as if the said Krishnamurthy ever paid any amount much less Rs.8000/= towards sale consideration when purchase was made by Noorjan in the year 1982.