ARUMUGAM Vs. SEETHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Sirkali, dated 3. 9. 2003, made in I. A. No. 11/2003 in R. C. O. P. No. 4/2002 dismissing the application filed under section 151 CPC declining to stay the proceedings in R. C. O. P. No. 4/2002, till the disposal of O. S. No. 49/2001, Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai. The Respondents/defendants are the Revision Petitioners. The relevant facts are :-

(2.) R. C. O. P. NO. 4/2002 :-Petition mentioned House Property is situate at D. No. 21, South Car Street, Vaitheeswaran Koil, Sirkazhi. The Revision Petitioners have become tenants under the Respondents. Originally, the monthly rent payable was Rs. 300/- which was later increased to Rs. 400/ -. The Respondents have not regularly paid the rent. When notice was issued seeking for payment of rent, the Respondents have set forth a false claim. Hence the Rent Control petition was filed for eviction, under section 10 (2) (1) and and (7) and Section 14 (1) (b) on the ground of wilful default and demolition and reconstruction. For convenience, parties are referred to in their rank in RCOP No. 4/2002.

(3.) DENYING that they are tenants under the Petitioner/ landlady and denying the tenancy, the Respondents have filed the counter statement. The Respondents have claimed that Petitioner/land Lady had executed an Agreement of Sale on 15. 12. 1999. For the enforcement of that contract, the Respondents have filed O. S. No. 49/2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai for specific performance of contract. Since the Respondents are in possession of the petition mentioned premises pursuant to the Agreement of Sale, the Petitioner/landlady cannot seek to evict the Respondents by filing Rent Control Application.