T POONGOTHAI Vs. ZAMURTH BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant before the learned Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1990 by its order dated 4-2-1991, confirming the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Coimbatore in R.C.O.P. No. 354 of 1986 dated 16-11-1989, is the Revision Petitioner herein, canvassing the impugned order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority for want of its legality, propriety and correctness.

(2.) THE non-residential premises bearing Door Nos. 67, 68 situate in Variety Hall Road, Coimbatore Town is being owned by respondents herein who are the mother and son, living as one family in the rear side of the same, and among them, respondents 4 and 5 are jobless, but, however, manufacturing ready-made petty coats and dresses by engaging more than six sewing machines therein. Besides the said buildings in question, they do not own any other building anywhere in the town at any point of time. THE said b uilding consists of upstairs portion. In the ground floor, in the front side, facing the Main Road, there are number of tenants in occupation for their commercial purposes. As such, in the ground floor, in the front side of the said building, a portion consisting of 16 "12 feet was let out to the tenant who is the Revision petitioner herein for a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- for a period of 5 years with an advance of Rs. 20,000/-. Out of the said advance amount, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was adjusted towards the rent and the balance of Rs. 10,000/- remains with the respondents herein. Besides, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to them subsequently on 25-2-1984 and thus, a total sum of Rs. 15,000/- is still in the hands of the respondents herein. THE 2nd respondent is employed in Railways and the 3rd respondent is working as Assistant in a concern which manufactures readymade garments known as "Best Shop".

(3.) THE claim of the petitioners/landlords was resisted by the first respondent, the Revision petitioner herein by filing a counter statement in which it was contended inter-alia that the premises was rented out for a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- for non-residential purposes, and there was an advance of Rs. 15,000/- paid in all by the tenant. A further contention was made that the Revision Petitioner has paid huge amount for the purpose of constructing the building, that therefore, there was an agreement for a period of 25 years and the respondents agreed not to interfere or ask for eviction of the rental premises within that period and so, before, the expiry of the said period, demanding her to vacate is a contradiction to the agreement and the rental agreement contains the period for its enforceability and it was agreed therein that the said period was to be extended and that rental agreement was dated 9-2-1981. It was also contended that besides the advance made, the landlords obtained further sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of loan agreed to be repaid with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum and that amount has been repaid as evident from the receipts convered under Exhibits P-8 to P. 27. THE other documentary evidence shows that besides the loan amount above referred to, the landlords viz., the respondents herein had availed loans from other sources also. It was further contended that the requirement of the rental premises by the respondents is not genuine and bonafide, but, however intended for evicting the tenant/Revision petitioner with every motive.