THANGAVELU Vs. RAMADOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority made in R.C.A. No.36 of 1989, dated 2.4.1991, confirming the order of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur in R.C.O.P. No.28 of 1980, dated 4.10.1989. The respondent, Ramadoss was the petitioner in R.C.O.P. No.28 of 1980 before the Rent Controller, Tiruvarur. The revision petitioner was the respondent in the said R.C.O.P. Ramadoss contended in that petition that the revision petitioner Thangavelu was a tenant of a building being premises, bearing door Nos.24 -A and 25 in Ward II, Block III, Thanjavur Road, Tiruvarur and situate in T.S. No.593 of an extent of 422 and 1/4 sq.ft. under one Ramanathan Chettiar of Devakottai, on a monthly rent of Rs.7 and that he, Ramadoss had purchased the same along with some other items from that Ramanathan Chettiar by a sale deed, dated 7.3.1980. The prayer for eviction was founded on Sec. 10(2)(i) and (vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) It was alleged that Ramadoss had a notice issued to the petitioner herein on 12.6.1980 to which a reply dated 24.6.1980 had been caused to be issued by Thangavelu disputing the claim. In his petition for eviction, after tracing the title of his vendor, Ramanathan Chettiar, Ramadoss alleged, among others as follows:

(2.) . At the time of hearing before the Rent Controller, Ramadoss, the petitioner was examined himself as RW. 1. Masilamani Thevar and Ramanathan Chettiar were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively. Masilamani was claimed to have been an employee of RW.3, the vendor, Ramanathan. However, the lease deed to which there was a reference made in the eviction petition was not produced before the court. Ramadoss, the petitioner did not depose as to whether he made any attempt to trace the same and with what result. In fact, he admitted candidly that he did not know anything about the old documents and he kept discretly silent on that aspect. In his chief -examination, he stated "Account Books are Exs.A -54 to A -60. Entry reading Thanjavur Salai house rent will refer to rent paid by the respondent -s father.." In his cross examination, he said "At the time of purchase door Nos.23 24, 24 A, 25 -A, 25 -A.1 and 25 -A.2 were purchased.." In Ex.A -2, door No.24 is not there. I do not know to which door number 24 -A relates.." Proceeding further, he stated "I cannot say to which building No.24 -A was given.." He proceeds to say "It is true to say that the father of the respondent was a tenant under Ramanathan Chettiar.." I know Kuppuswamy Chettiar. He died in or about 1977 .. Kuppuswamy Chettiar -s father -s name was Angappa Chettiar. In Account books, Exs.A -54 to A -60, the name of Kuppuswamy Chettiar is not there. Receipt of rent for door Nos.24 -A and 25 are not shown..

(3.) MASILAMANI Thever, RW.2 in his deposition stated in the main the following: