SRIDHARAN Vs. S NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order: Aggrieved by the Order made in R. C. A. No. 8/99 reversing the Order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in R. C. O. P. No. 4/1997, landlord has preferred CRP No. 623/2001. Appellate Authority allowing the appeal filed by the Tenant and ordering deposit of rent is the subject matter of challenge in C. R. P. No. 624/2001.

(2.) REVISION Petitions arise on the following facts:- The first Respondent Tenant took lease of 1. 45 acres of land with building, at No. 41-A, Thenpathi Main Road, Kaivilancherry Vattam, Sirkali, in the year 1985, for a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-, for running a nursery school. Rs. 2,000/- was paid as advance. 2. 1. R. C. O. P. No. 7/1996:- The first Respondent has filed R. C. O. P. No. 7/1996 under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, [for short, 'the Act']. It was his case that father of REVISION Petitioner - Viswanatha Reddiar was originally receiving rents and he refused to receive rent and after issuing notice to Viswanatha Reddy [dated 16. 07. 1996], calling upon him to specify a bank to deposit the rents, first Respondent filed R. C. O. P. No. 7/1996 under Section 8(5) of the Act for deposit of rent into Court. 2. 2. R. C. O. P. No. 7/1996:- Stating that Tenants failed to pay rents from January, 1994 onwards, REVISION Petitioner filed this RCOP for eviction on the ground of wilful default. Eviction was also sought for on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and change of user. 2. 3. Eviction Petition was resisted by the first Respondent contending that only the father of REVISION Petitioner was receiving rents and that he has entered into a lease Agreement only with the said Viswanatha Reddiar in 1985 and not with the REVISION Petitioner. According to the first Respondent, since Viswanatha Reddiar refused to receive rent, he has filed R. C. O. P. No. 7/1996 for depositing rents into the Court and no default has been committed by the Tenants. The requirement for demolition and reconstruction was not bonafide and the first Respondent sought for dismissal of Eviction Petition. 2. 4. REVISION Petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and produced Ex. A-3 - Lease Agreement dated 3. 6. 1985, which was executed by Respondents in favour of REVISION Petitioner. On the basis of Ex. A-3 - Lease Deed, Rent Controller found that as per Ex. A-3, REVISION Petitioner is the landlord, who is entitled to receive the rent. Observing that procedure contemplated under Sec. 8 of the Act was not complied with, Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default. Finding that the building is very old, Rent Controller held that requirement for demolition and reconstruction is bonafide. It was held that conversion of Elementary School to Matriculation school would not amount to change of user. 2. 5. Petition filed by Tenant under Sec. 8(5) of the Act for depositing rent into Court was dismissed by Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the Order of Rent Controller both in Eviction Petition and under Sec. 8(5) of the Act, Tenant has preferred appeals. The Appellate Authority allowed both the appeals and reversed the Order of Rent Controller. On a joint hearing of both appeals, Appellate Authority held that at the time of Ex. A-3, REVISION Petitioner was a minor. Ex. A-3 is not a valid document and set aside the finding as regards wilful default in payment of rent, and in so far as demolition and reconstruction is concerned, the Appellate Authority held that the Petitioner did not prove his bonafide requirement and also his financial capacity to demolish and reconstruct and on those findings, Appellate Authority set aside the findings with regard to demolition and reconstruction also.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the first Respondent is a Tenant and tenancy was for running a school and monthly rent was originally Rs. 150/- and then increased to Rs. 200/-. What is in dispute is, as to who is the owner of the building - whether it is the Revision Petitioner or his father Viswanatha Reddiar.