N. PADMAVATHY Vs. S.A. RAMAKRISHNA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the revision petitions arise out for a common order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamalle, who being the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in R.C.A. No. 10 of 1989 dated 20.10.1989, setting aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Kancheepuram in RCOP No. 49 of 1984 dated 14.10.1988, partly in favour of and partly against each of the revision petitioners and as consented to by the Bar for the respective parties, both revision petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) A portion of the premises bearing Door No. 47 situate in T.K. Nambi Street, Kancheepuram town is the subject matter of these revision petitions being the rental premises, in which the revision petitioner in the former revision is the tenant and the revision petitioner in the latter revision petition is supposed to be the landlord. Being the chief tenant, as the said premises alongwith two other non-residential premises situate in the front and the residential portions in the back in its entirety being owned by one C. Varadarajulu, a permanent resident of Madras town, having obtained the possession of the entire premises in question, the revision petitioner in the latter case, hereinafter referred to as the landlord, for the reason that he was recognised as the person entitled to receive the rent and with whom, the tenancy agreement was entered into, has let out the demised premises to the revision petitioner in the former case, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, by virtue of a written rental agreement for a duration of eleven months, which fact had been admitted. In a similar fashion, the quantum of rent agreed upon by the parties, at the initial stage at Rs. 200/- per mensem, was also increased to Rs. 250/- per mensem with an advance of Rs. 600/- paid by the tenant to the landlord. That being so, on 25.1.1984, under the original of Ex. P.1, the landlord had issued a legal notice to the tenant, terminating the tenancy agreement entered into with her, on the ground that he requires the rental premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and for its own use and occupation. This notice was acknowledged by the respondent-tenant on 28.1.1984 under the cover of Ex. P.2.

(3.) ON recording the oral evidence of the landlord on the side of the petitioner, and the evidence of two witnesses, including the tenant on the side of the respondent and the documentary evidence Exs. P.1 and P.2 on behalf of the landlord and Exs. R.1 to R.11 on behalf of the respondent-tenant, the learned Rent Controller had declined to accept the grounds of eviction and consequently dismissed the petition in toto. Aggrieved at this the landlord preferred the appeals before the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, who is the Rent Control Appellate Authority, canvassing the correctness and propriety of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. On a reconsideration of the entire adduced evidence and pleadings with the rival contentions the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority accepted the case of the landlord holding that the tenant had committed the wilful default in payment of rent since the month of June 1984 onwards and even during the pendency of the proceedings and that therefore, he set aside the dismissal order passed by the learned Rent Controller in this regard and thereby passed an order of eviction, by giving reasonable time to evict. But however, with regard to the other ground namely, the requirement of the demised premises for own use and occupation of the landlord is concerned, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has stated that no argument was advanced pressing that ground during the appeal. While stating so, in the light of the findings given by the learned Rent Controller, he has not accepted the case of the landlord and as such rejected the said ground in the appeal. Aggrieved at the order of eviction at one hand and the order of dismissal of the petitions of the landlord on the other hand, both the landlord and the tenant have approached this court by filing the above two revision petitions and canvassed the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority for want of its legality, correctness and propriety.