T A SHANMUGAM Vs. SOUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlords/ respondents filed the petition for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent from August 1997.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondents/landlords, monthly rent is Rs. 400/- and the demised portion is a residential portion. The tenant/revision petitioner has filed counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the monthly rent is rs. 150/- from 01. 04. 1995 and at the time of tenancy he has paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards the rental advance. It was also the case of the tenant/revision petitioner that he entered an agreement with one R. Shanmugham who, according to him, has let out the property under which it was agreed by the tenant/revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/-to the said R. Shanmugham and in lieu of the same to enjoy the property. Pursuant to the said agreement dated 01. 02. 1996, the revision petitioner/tenant has paid a sum of rs. 75,000/- to the said R. Shanmugham. Therefore, according to him there was no landlords-tenant relationship. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that if the landlords re-payed the amount of Rs. 75,000/-, the revision petitioner/tenant is willing to surrender possession.

(3.) THE Rent Controller, by elaborate discussion, about the payment of Rs. 75,000/- stated to have been made to the said R. Shanmugham, has come to a conclusion that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the revision petitioner/tenant has paid Rs. 75,000/- to the said r. Shanmugham being the father of the landlords and held that the revision petitioner/tenant was not holding the property as an agreement holder and found on fact that there was landlords and tenant relationship. Further the Rent controller has found from the evidence of the tenant/revision petitioner himself, who has categorically admitted that from 31. 07. 1997 he has not paid any rent. It is also found from the deposition of the revision petitioner/tenant that after the death of R. Shanmugham, the predecessor of the landlords, no rent has been paid and it is also specifically admitted by the revision petitioner/tenant that he has not agreed with R. Shanmugham to purchase the property. It was on the said specific finding, the Rent Controller has found that the revision petitioner/tenant has committed willful default and ordered eviction. On appeal, the Appellant Authority has also agreed with the finding of fact by the learned Rent Controller and held that there was no evidence for payment of Rs. 75,000/-by the revision petitioner/tenant and the revision petitioner/tenant has not proved the allegations of mortgage transactions. On the other hand, the Appellant Authority has found that the landlords/respondents have established the willful default committed by the tenant/revision petitioner on his own admission and ordered eviction.