JESSIE THAVAMANI Vs. LIAKATH BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner in this revision. THE respondent filed the Rent Control Original Petition No. 18 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vellore under Secs. l0 (2) (l) and 10 (3) (a) (l) of the tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by the Act 28 of 1973. THE respondent is the owner of the property in question, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 17. 7. 1984 from dr. Margaret Mathaniel for a sum of Rs. 24,000. THE petitioner is the tenant and was paying a rent of Rs. 65 per month from the year 1980. THE respondent after the purchase, directed the petitioner herein to pay the rent and attorned the tenancy on him. THE respondent issued registered notice through his lawyer on 26. 7. 1984, calling upon the petitioner to pay the rent from the date of purchase and also to deliver the property within three months, since he required the same for his personal occupation. He also terminated the tenancy of the petitioner. THE petitioner, though received the notice, did not comply with the demands. Another notice was sent on 17. 11. 1986. According to the respondent, the conduct of the petitioner in not paying the rent from 17. 7. 1984 is deliberate and wilful and therefore, she is liable to be evicted. THE respondent also states that he requires the building for the purpose of his own occupation after demolition and reconstruction. Since the respondent is residing in a rental building. He has no other house at Vellore and therefore, requires the building for his own occupation. THErefore, the respondent/ landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and also for his own occupation.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a counter in the rent control petition. According to her, the petition for eviction is not maintainable and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and there is no tenancy of any kind whatsoever. According to her, the respondent is neither the owner of the petition mentioned property, nor he has let out to the petitioner. THE alleged sale in his favour is not true, valid, legal and binding on others, much less this petitioner herein. THE sale deed is a fraudulent one and was created to defeat the legal and valid rights of the petitioner. THE petitioner has been a tenant of the entire door No. 1/3 and has been paying the rent for the neighbouring area as well. THE original owner agreed to sell the entire area to the petitioner herein and two others and in view of the agreement to sell and further contracts, the original owner has no other go except to sell to the petitioner, the petition mentioned property. In part performance to sell, the petitioner's possession has been converted into full and absolute possession and the tenancy between the petitioner and Dr. Margaret Mathaniel, the previous owner has been put to an end and the original owner asked the petitioner not to pay the rent and allowed the petitioner to enjoy fully as absolute owner thereof. From that time onwards, the petitioner enjoyed the petition mentioned property as her own property. THErefore, no rents are payable from the date of agreement to sell. This apart, there is no attornment of tenancy. THE petitioner never agreed to pay rent to the respondent herein. THEre is a suit pending before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore in o. S. No. 276 of 1984 in respect of the petition mentioned property between the same parties. THE petitioner herein as plaintiff filed the said suit for specific performance of contract to sell against the original owner and others and if the suit is decreed, automatically, the sale deed in favour of the respondent will become invalid. THE other two purchasers are also impleaded as defendants 3 and 4. In view of this suit, the petition for eviction has no basis at all. Since the title of the respondent is in question, the petitioner is not, liable to pay any rent and also liable to be evicted from the property in question. THE respondent is not a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of rights of the petitioner herein. It is false to allege that the respondent requires the property for his own use and occupation and for demolition and reconstruction. THE respondent is living in a very big house of his own in the same street and therefore, he does not require the property in question for any purpose. THEre are no bona fides in his alleged requirement. THE building is not in a dilapidated condition and it requires no demolition or reconstruction. THE respondent does not want to occupy the same, nor wants to reconstruct. He is not residing in a rental building. He has other houses in vellore town. THE cause of action alleged is false. THE vendor did not ask the petitioner to pay the rent to the respondent herein, nor direct any attornment.

(3.) THE Rent Controller, as seen earlier, accepted the defence taken by the tenant that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner after the agreement to sell and therefore, there is no liability to pay the rent at all subsequent to the date of agreement. In this view, he dismissed the eviction petition. However, on appeal, the Appellate Authority has taken the view that notwithstanding the agreement of sale, between the respondent and the petitioner the relationship of landlord and tenant continues and therefore, there is a clear wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent by the petitioner to the respondent herein and that the respondent has also established his bona fide requirement of the premises. In this view, the Appellate Authority Ordered the petitioner's eviction. THE said order of eviction has been challenged in this revision.