RAJALINGA CHETTIAR Vs. NATARAJA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three revision petitions arise out of a common judgment rendered by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 dismissing the appeals filed by the three petitioners against the orders of eviction passed against them by the Rent controller. ALL the three petitioners are tenants in the various portions in the same building. Two grounds were urged for the purpose of eviction: (1)wilful default in payment of rent, and (2) bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and re-construction.

(2.) THE Rent Controller by a common judgment in all the three rent control petitions filed by the petitioners, held that the grounds of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent and the bona fide requirement of the premises for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction, has been established. On appeals filed by the petitioners, the appellate authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction. In these three revision petitions, the petitioners challenged the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority on the above two grounds.

(3.) R. Subramanian is the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 372 of 1990. He become a tenant under the respondent on 1. 12. 1978 and was paying Rs. 75 per month by way of rent. He is running laundry shop in Door No. 184, rajaveedhi, Kurinjipadi. According to him, till July, 1983 there was no dispute and then the respondent demanded higher rent from him which he refused to pay. Thereafter, the respondent did not send anybody for collecting the rent. Without collecting the rent, the respondent issued a notice. Thereafter, the petitioner remitted the following amounts viz. , 23. 9. 1983 - Rs. 200, 3. 10. 1983 -Rs. 600, 1. 5. 1984 - Rs. 400 and 4. 6. 1985 Rs. 400 to the respondent's father. Thereafter, the respondent filed R. C. O. P. No. 27 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif- Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default and also for demolition and re-construction. The case of the respondent is that the building is required for demolition and for re-construction. The Rent controller ordered eviction on both the grounds of wilful default and for demolition and re-construction which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in R. C. A. No. 26 of 1988.