T S ARULROYER Vs. LAJJA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). THE case has a chequered history. THE landlady who filed the eviction petition in August, 1982 is still longing for justice in this Court. THE matter came up before this Court on an earlier occasion in revision filed by the tenant, which was disposed of by this Court on 13.11.1987 by remitting the matter back to the Appellate Authority to consider the question whether the tenant has put a substantial portion of the building to a different user in the light of the observations made in the order. Both parties were given due opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence on this aspect of the matter alone. After remand, evidence was let in, both oral and documentary. THE Appellate Authority on a careful consideration of the evidence placed, both oral and documentary rejected the Appeal R.C.A. No.622 of 1983 by his order, dated 25th March, 1991. THE tenant/ first petitioner (T.S. Arulroyer (deceased)) has filed the present civil revision petition before this Court and the same was admitted on 24.7.1991. During the pendency of this civil revision petition, the tenant/ first petitioner, T.S.Arulroyer died and his son and two grandsons through his son were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4, and as the legal representatives of the first petitioner, T.S. Arulroyer as per the order of this Court, dated 6.3.1996 in C.M.P. No.14099 of 1995. As stated above, C.M.P. No. 14099 of 1995 was filed by the son and grandsons of the deceased first petitioner/ tenant under Sec.27(2) of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules to bring them on record as petitioners 2 to 4 being the legal representatives of the first petitioner late T.S. Arulroyer in this civil revision petition and also permit them to continue the civil revision petition. One A.Maria Antony, (second petitioner), son of the first petitioner/ tenant has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the above civil miscellaneous petition. It is stated in the affidavit that even during the life time of the tenant, the two grand sons viz., the proposed petitioners 3 and 4 were looking after the shop along with the tenant/ first petitioner. THEy have also paid the rent in respect of the petition property in question to the landlady. It is further stated that since the tenant/T.S. Arulroyer died on 2.7.1995, leaving behind him his only son as his legal heir and that since the proposed petitioners 3 and 4, who are the grand sons of the deceased tenant, who were actually looking after the business in the petition mentioned property, all the three of them must be impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, the sole petitioner in the civil revision petition.

(2.) THE above civil miscellaneous petition was contested by the respondent/ landlady, who filed a detailed counter-affidavit, denying all the allegations made in the affidavit filed in the abovesaid civil miscellaneous petition by one of the legal representatives of the tenant. It is contended that as the son of the tenant (petitioner No.2) was not in continuous association with the tenant, viz., his father, the purpose of carrying on the business, the son of the deceased tenant cannot become the legal representative of the deceased tenant as far as the proceedings under the Rent Control Act are concerned. Likewise, the grandsons of the deceased tenant/ first petitioner cannot also (petitioners 3 and 4) become the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, as they do not come within the definition of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. It is also stated that the grandsons of the tenant/ first petitioner (petitioners 3 and 4) were also not in continuous association with their grand father for the purpose of carrying on business. Under those circumstances, it was contended on the side of the landlady that they cannot be impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased first petitioner/ tenant. When the above C.M.P. No.14099 of 1995 came up for orders, before my learned brother Jagadeesan, J. he reserved liberty to both parties to raise all those objections at the time of final disposal of the civil revision petition.

(3.) IT is the case of the landlady that the building was leased out to the tenant for the purpose of carrying on business dealing in Radios, Cycles, Fans, Clocks and Steel furniture's and that it was specifically agreed by the tenant that he would not carry on any other business and use the building for any other purpose and that as against such specific agreement, the tenant is using the business premises for carrying on business in grocery.