SRILA SRI RAMANATHAGNANA DESIKAR SWAMIGAL, MATATHIPATHI OF KOVILUR MUTT, THROUGH POWER AGENT AMIRTHALINGASWAMIGAL Vs. GANI ROWTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant who succeeded in the trial Court, but failed in the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. The respondent filed the suit for a declaration that the consent order for eviction passed in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1968 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Manamadurai) is not valid and binding on him, for three reasons, namely, that he was not aware of the contents of the endorsement made by him on the petition for eviction; that he signed the endorsement without knowing the implications and that the Rent Controller has not applied his mind before he passed the order of eviction on the basis of the endorsement made on the petition for eviction. The appellant's defence was that the respondent signed the joint endorsement knowing its contents and implications and that the Rent Controller applied his mind and found that the order of eviction was called, for and ordered the eviction.

(2.) THE trial Court found that the order of the Rent Controller was not void or a nullity and dismissed the suit. But, on appeal the finding of the trial Court was reversed and the suit was, decreed.

(3.) IT is seen from Ex.B -1 that the eviction of the respondent was sought by the appellant in the said R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1968 on two grounds, namely, that the respondent was running a grocery shop in the premises, that either because of want of diligence on the part of the respondent or due to natural causes, the premises had become badly damaged thereby requiring substantial repairs to be done for rectifying the same, that the appellant felt that unless the whole premises was brought down as quickly as possible and major repairs effected, there was every likelihood of the structure falling down, that secondly, contrary to the understanding between the parties, the respondent has been storing grocery in bulk in the premises and it has resulted in rats getting into the premises and making holes and that the respondent thereby committed acts of waste which were certain to impair materially the value and utility of the premises. These are some of the grounds on the basis of which, according to the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), a landlord can ask for the eviction of his tenant before the Rent Controller. The respondent appears to have opposed the petition by filing a counter statement which has not been produced in this suit. But, he had made an endorsement on the petition on 1st November, 1968 evidently when the petition for eviction was about to be taken up for enquiry by the Rent Controller. The endorsement is to the effect that the respondent in this appeal was to vacate the premises before the expiry of 2 years and 3 months, that is by 1st February, 1971. and hand over vacant possession of the same to the appellant and that he was agreeable to such an order being made by the Rent Controller. It is also to the effect that if the respondent did not vacate the premises as aforesaid, the appellant could obtain delivery of possession of the premises by executing the order which may be passed by the Rent Controller in the eviction petition. The order passed on the petition by the Rent Controller reads thus: