DHANASEKARAPANDIAN Vs. AMINAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Mannargudi) in RCA No. 1 of 2013 confirming the order of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Mannargudi).

(2.) THE unsuccessful tenant in the eviction proceedings is the revision petitioner. The respondent initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The case of the landlady is that she purchased the petition premises by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1988 from one Pakkir Mohideen and at the time of purchase, there was a thatched structure with walls constructed by bricks and sands were in existence. Subsequently, the landlady removed the thatched roof and put up a cement sheet; that the tenant was inducted by her vendor on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/ - and after her purchase, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 750/ - and after a period of three years, it was enhanced to Rs. 1000/ -.

(3.) THE eviction petition was opposed by the tenant stating that he does not know the purchase made by the landlady from Mr. Pakkir Mohideen on 15.06.1988, that he was in possession of the property and doing business for more than 35 years without any rental agreement and without paying any rent. One Mr. Abdul Rahim received Rs. 65,000/ - from the tenant on 14.09.1979 agreeing to execute sale deed in his favour, however due to illness, he could not execute the sale deed. The tenant further denied the title of the landlady and stated that the eviction petition is not maintainable.