R NAGARATHINAM AMMAL Vs. M RAJA ALIAS GOVINDARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. NAGARATHINAM Ammal, landlady of the petition premises, filed a petition for eviction against the first respondent, namely, M. Raja @ Govindaraj, who is the tenant, and the second respondent, namely, S. Shanmugam, who is the sub-tenant, on the grounds of owner s occupation and subletting. The learned Rent Controller, holding that the ground of subletting has been proved, ordered for eviction of the respondents, by an order dated 28. 06. 2002. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which, in turn, allowed their appeal and set aside the order of eviction, passed by the learned Rent Controller. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition, by the landlady.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner/landlady, the petition premises was let out in the year 1980 to Raja @ Govindaraj, first respondent herein, on the condition that there should not be any subletting without her permission; despite that, the petition premises was leased out to the second respondent/sub-tenant, without her permission; notice was issued to both the respondents; the first respondent sent a reply, denying the allegation and the second respondent did not choose to receive the notice and the same was returned, as not claimed ; since the petition premises was required for owners occupation to allow her grandson to run business, an eviction petition was filed, both on the grounds of owner s occupation and subletting.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents/tenants, the claim for owner s occupation is not bona fide; the premises is not sublet by the first respondent to the second respondent; the second respondent is a partner of the first respondent and, as such, they are not liable to be evicted.