SONMULL Vs. M D DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions arise out of a common judgment given in two appeals by the Court of Small Causes, Madras as an appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE landlords, Mrs.Dhanalakshmi and Kumaradoss are the widow and son respectively of one Devadoss, who was the son of one M.K. Sundaramier. THE petitioned property which is a house bearing door No.77, Narayana Mudali Street, Madras was the joint family property of Sunda-ramier and his son Devadoss. In a suit filed for partition and possession of the half portion as heirs of deceased Devadoss the landlords were held entitled to possession of the northern half of the house in dispute,the southern half having gone to the share of Sundaramier. It appears that in execution proceedings, the tenant Sonmull and Sons who is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2056 of 1983 and one Rasiklal A.Shah, obstructed the execution proceedings and the decree-holders, the present landlords, filed a petition under Or.21, Rules 96 and 97, C.P.C., on 14th October, 1977. In these proceedings, an endorsement was made on behalf of the decreeholders. landlords, that the obstructors had agreed to attorn the tenancy in respect of the decreeholder's southern half share and therefore a symbolical delivery may be ordered. Accordingly, on 14.11.1977, the Court made an order that the decree holders can take symbolical possession as against the obstructors.

(3.) THE landlords again served a notice dated 24.4.1981 stating that Kumaradoss, son of Devadoss, petitioner No.2 (in the eviction petition) had lost his father when he was still a baby and that he was brought up by his uncle with whom he was staying. It was stated that Kumaradoss was required to visit Madras often for the purpose of his own business which he has set up and has to reside in lodging houses. He therefore wanted to reside in Madras in his own house. An averment was made that though the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises, he had not done so, though more than three years had passed. An allegation of sub-letting was also made, without the consent of the landlords in favour of respondents 2 and 3 (in the eviction petition). Thus, the tenancy of the tenant was terminated in respect of premises No.25/1, Narayana Mudali Street, which was the premises owned by the landlords. It may be stated that the tenant had already purchased the other half of the premises which belonged to Sundaramier.