GANDHIMATHI RAMIYA Vs. G. SYED MOHIDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed the petition for eviction under section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vii) and 10(3)(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. According to the landlord, he is the owner of the petition premises situated at D. No. 22/1 in old Ward No. 137th Block in Old No. 205 part, new ward No. L.S. No. 3/9, 3/15. According to the landlord he purchased the petition premises on 17.5.84 under a sale deed from one Nazir Ahamed. There was an agreement of sale in respect of his property in favour of the landlord dated 18.2.1984. In accordance with the said sale agreement the petition premises was purchased under the sale deed dated 17.5.1984. The respondent in the eviction petition is the tenant in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. After the sale deed was executed, the tenant was informed about the sale in favour of the landlord herein. The tenant also accepted to pay the rent to the present landlord. But, thereafter, did not pay the rent to the present landlord. Hence, the landlord sent a notice to the tenant which is marked as Ex. P4. There is no date in the said notice. Ex. P5 is the reply sent by the tenant dated 30.7.1984. Accordingly to the landlord, the tenant was not correct in stating that she entered into an agreement to purchase the petition premises with the said Nazir Ahamed on 6.4.1984. The said document is a forged document. The tenant cannot claim any right on the basis of the said document inasmuch as the landlord purchased the petition premises from Nazir Ahamed who is the prior owner of the petition premises. The tenant is liable to pay the rent to the present owner of the petition premises. According to the landlord, the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from 17.5.1984 till July 1984. It was further stated that the landlord is staying in a rented house. He wants the petition premises for his own occupation. He has no other residential house in the Trichy Town. Therefore, he requires the petition premises bona fide under section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.

(2.) THE tenant filed a counter stating that the landlord herein already filed a petition for eviction against the tenant. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition as regards the petition premises. The tenant after obtaining the sale agreement, filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. The said suit is pending. Therefore, it is not correct to state that the respondent is tenant in the petitioner premises. It is also not correct to state that the petitioner in the eviction petition requires the petition premises bona fide under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.

(3.) ON appeal, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Exs. P6 to P12 were filed. They were marked by the Court as documents in the proceedings. The appellate authority on a consideration of the facts of the case confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller. It is against the order, that present revision has been filed by the tenant.