HOTHIRAM Vs. PURSHOTAM MOHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant who has suffered concurrent orders of eviction before the Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal.

(2.) I have heard Mr.A.Babu for Mr.A.C.Kumaragurubaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Mr.A.Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that both the Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal have committed a serious error in holding that the Act would apply to the case in question. According to Mr.Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the possession of the revision petitioner, is in the nature of Othi, akin to a Usufructuary Mortgage. Inviting my attention to the agreement dtd. 1/4/2013, the Counsel would state that an interest free deposit of Rs.6,50,000.00 has been paid by the petitioner to the brother of the respondent, one Sanjaykumar R. Mohta and in consideration of such payment, the petitioner was permitted to occupy the entire third floor portion of the premises bearing New. No.21, Old No.25, Chandrappa Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai -600 079, for residential purposes, without any liability to pay rent, in lieu of the interest free deposit of Rs.6,50,000.00 having been paid.