B.VANAJAKSHI Vs. A.PARTHIBAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the judgment of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, passed in R.C.A.No.34 of 2005 on 14.02.2007.

(2.) It is the case of petitioners/landlords that the they are owners of non -residential building situated at Balamore Road, Nagercoil, bearing Door No.113, which was leased to respondents/tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/ -. Respondents/tenants have paid rent by cash till November 1993 and thereafter, they have paid rent by cheque till June 2000. Since July 2000, there is wilful default in payment of rent. Respondents/tenants have also made some alterations in to the rented premises and sub -let the same towards conduct of sweet stall, lottery sales counter, S.T.D., I.S.D. and telephone booths, without the permission of landlords. Informing willful default in payment of rent and their requirement of petition premises towards expanding their book shop, petitioners/landlords sent a notice on 15.12.2001 to respondents/tenants terminating the tenancy as on 31.12.2001 and sought vacation of petition premises. As respondents/tenants have issued a false reply and no cheque has been enclosed as alleged by them, petitioners/landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2002 on the file of learned Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil, seeking an order of eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent, sub -letting, bonafide requirement of petition premises for own use and occupation and denial of title. By way of counter, respondents/tenants contented that the petition premises belonged to Anandasamuthram Gramma Brahmin Trust and hence, petitioners/landlords have no locus standi to file the petition. The trust has terminated agreement with petitioners and O.S.No.22 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, is pending. Against the agreed rent of Rs.3,700/ -, petitioners/landlords have collected Rs.4,000/ -, the rent has been paid regularly and as such, there is no willful default in payment of rent.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller, petitioners/landlords examined three witnesses and marked nine exhibits. One witness was examined on behalf of respondents/tenants and eleven exhibits were marked.