LORD RAMAGOPAL Vs. SIVAKAMI AMMAL PORPATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD is the petitioner herein. Mrs. Sivakami Ammal Porpatham is the chief tenant. Respondents 1 and 3 herein are the sub-tenants under the 2nd respondent. The petition for eviction was filed on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and for sub-letting under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For the sake of convenience the array of parties as given in the eviction petition is followed herein.

(2.) ACCORDING to the landlord, the 1st Respondent in the eviction petition is a tenant under him in respect of the shop premises bearing door No. 78 General Patters Road, Madras on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. The tenancy is as per the English calendar month. The 1st Respondent has been very irregular in payment of rent from September, 1973 onwards. She has paid Rs. 300/- on 13.8.1977 and another sum of Rs. 300 on 29.9.1979 and committed wilful default in payment of rent. When a notice was issued by the landlord she had paid a sum of Rs. 150/- towards the arrears of rent on 5.2.1978. There is now due a sum of Rs. 3,075/- by way of arrears of rent for the period from 1.11.1974 to 31.3.1978. The 1st respondent has sub-let the petition premises without the written consent of the landlord to respondents 2 and 3. Therefore all the respondents are liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter stating that the 1st respondent represented that she is the owner of the superstructure and she let out a portion of the premises to him to carry on his business. According to him the 1st respondent represented that she is a tenant only in respect of the land. Since the 1st respondent is a tenant in respect of land alone, the petition as framed is not maintainable. So also it was submitted that the tenancy of the 1st respondent is outside the purview of the Act. The 2nd respondent is a direct tenant under the 1st respondent in respect of shop bearing old No. 59 and new No. 78 from 1977 onwards. The 3rd respondent has been a tenant in the petition premises for more than 15 years past. Therefore, the petition filed for eviction on the ground of sub-letting is liable to be dismissed.