CENTRAL HAMEEDIA STORES Vs. VALLIAMMMAL ALIAS RAJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the petitioners. THE respondent/landlady filed R. C. O. P. 11/87 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), sankarankoil to evict the petitioners herein on the ground of wilful default and for demolition and reconstruction.

(2.) THE respondent's case is that the monthly rent for the premises is Rs. 500/- of which Rs. 350/- is to be paid every month on or before 5th of succeeding month and Rs. 150/- has to be paid in the consolidated basis, once in six months. THE petitioners failed to pay the rent from 30th March to 30th September, accruing to Rs. 900/- at the rate of Rs. 150/- p. m and failed to pay the entire rent from 1. 9. 86 to 30. 9. 87. THE building is 60 years old and the respondent wants to demolish the existing superstructure a nd put up the new building in order to augment the income.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent represented that admittedly the building is 60 years old and naturally the building requires certain repairs. Taking into consideration of the situation of the building, in the heart of the town, the landlady wants to demolish the building in order to argument her income. In such case, he relied upon the judgment reported in lakshmanan v. Kanniammal, 1995 (II) MLJ 178. Though the finding given on the ground of wilful default is sufficient to sustain the order of eviction, to complete the contention of the counsel on both sides, I think it is better to deal with this point also.