ANJANEYALU CHETTIAR Vs. MUTHIAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition, the order of the Courts below, and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Kannan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Advocate for the respondents, the Court made the following order:- The landlord is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He filed R.C.O.P. No. 31 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Cuddalore, against the respondents for eviction. His case is that he requires the premises for starting a show room that the 1st respondent had put the petition premises for different use, that he had also sub-let the premises to the 2nd respondent without his consent and that had also committed wilful default. The respondents denied all the averments. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dismissed the petition and the appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord has filed the present revision in this Court.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. K. Kannan for the petitioner/landlord and Mr. R. Balasubramanian for the respondents/tenants, and perused the entire pleadings, evidence, both oral and documentary, and the judgements of the Courts below.

(3.) Wilful Default:- According to Mr. K. Kannan, the 1st respondent is liable to pay rent from 1-7-1984 till the date of petition, viz., 28-9-1985 and that the arrears amounting to Rs. 2,750.00 was due on the date of the petition. Ex. A-12 dated 23-5-1973 and Ex. A-13 dated 1-1-1983 are the rent deeds. Ex. A-8 dated 7-5-1985 is the notice sent by the 1st respondent through his counsel to the landlord requesting him to specify in writing the name of a bank into which the rent should be deposited by the 1st respondent. Ex. A-9 dated 25-5-1985 is the reply sent by the landlord to the 1st respondent, wherein the landlord has also mentioned that the 1st respondent has sub-let the premises to the 2nd respondent, who is now running a jewellery business in the premises, without his consent and wishes and therefore, he is also liable to be evicted for this reason as well. Ex. A-11 dated 7-6-1985 is the rejoinder sent on behalf of the tenant to the landlord denying the allegations contained in the reply notice Ex. A-9 dated 25-5-1985.