HALIMUNNISA Vs. PERVISE AHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of Eviction passed on the ground of Wilful Default, the Tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. For convenience, the parties are referred to in their original rank in r. C. O. P. No. 19 of 1992.

(2.) 1. The demised premises " Shop bearing Door no. 54, Main Bazaar, Vellore originally owned by Sherfunnisa Begum " the Petitioner's Grandmother. The premises was taken on lease by the Husband of the Respondent / Tenant originally for rent of Rs. 350/- p. m. and the rent was later raised to Rs. 600/-p. m. 2. 2. Case of Petitioner is that Sherfunnisa Begum " grandmother of Petitioner died leaving behind her Husband and Son " father of the Petitioner, who are the sole heirs, who inherited the property. The Respondent / Tenant attorned tenancy to the Petitioner's Father and was paying the rent to him only for two months. The Petitioner's Grandfather and father had executed a Gift Deed to the Petitioner in respect of the demised property under Settlement Deed dated 30. 05. 1990. The Respondent has paid the rent to the Petitioner for two months - August and September 1990. The petitioner has filed R. C. O. P. No. 8 of 1991 for eviction on the ground that the petitioner requires the premises for his own use and occupation. Aggrieved over filing of Eviction Petition, the Respondent / Tenant committed default in payment of rent. The Tenant has paid the rent only till July 1991 and committed default from August 1991. After committing default in payment of rent, the respondent issued Notice on 14. 12. 1991 alleging as if there is cloud upon the petitioner's Title, which was suitably replied by the Petitioner. 2. 3. The Petitioner has filed R. C. O. P. No. 19 of 1992 (in april 1992) for eviction under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act") on the ground of wilful Default in payment of rent from August 1991. The Respondent has filed r. C. O. P. No. 51 of 1992 (in September 1992) under Section 9 (3) of the Act, seeking permission to deposit the rent into Court along with arrears of rent. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Petitioner / Landlord sold the demised premises to the Second Respondent. 2. 4. The Rent Controller allowed both R. C. O. Ps and ordered eviction on both grounds " Own use and occupation and Wilful default. The Respondent / Tenant has preferred R. C. A. No. 26 of 1993 challenging the order of eviction on the ground of Own use and Occupation; R. C. A. Nos. 27 of 1993 challenging the order of eviction on the ground of Wilful Default. Pointing out the sale of demised premises to the Second Respondent, the appellate Authority allowed the Appeal in R. C. A. No. 26 of 1993 preferred against the order of eviction on the ground of Own use and Occupation. The Appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of Wilful Default, which is challenged in this Revision Petition.

(3.) I have carefully examined the records and given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the Revision Petitioner.