RAJAGANTHAM Vs. R VINAYAGA SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the concurrent findings and order of eviction, Tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original rank in H. R. C. O. P. No. 5 of 1998.

(2.) 1. Relevant facts for disposal of this Revision are as follows:- Petitioner / Landlord filed H. R. C. O. P. No. 5 of 1998 under Section 10(2)(i) of Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1969 (for short "the Act") for eviction of Respondent / Tenant on the ground of Wilful Default in payment of rent. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent, who is Petitioner's Sister had become Tenant on 01. 02. 1996 as per Lease Agreement dated 09. 02. 1996 agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The lease was for eleven months from 01. 02. 1996 to 31. 12. 1996. Right from inception of Tenancy, the Respondent has not paid the rent. Advocate Notice was issued calling upon the Tenant to pay arrears of rent. Alleging that the Tenant has to pay a sum of Rs. 2,300/- towards arrears of rent for a period of 23 months from 01. 02. 1996 to 31. 12. 1997, Eviction Petition was filed on the ground of Wilful Default. 2. 2. The Respondent / Tenant resisted the Eviction Petition on the ground that the Petitioner is not the sole owner of the building and that she is also one of the legal heirs of Deceased " Rajagopal Pillai, who is the Father of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent. According to Respondent, she has been continuously living in petition Schedule property for more than 53 years from her childhood and even after marriage, she continued to live in the property along with her Husband. The Respondent / Tenant claims share in the petition mentioned property. Further case of Respondent / Tenant is that she and her Two Sisters had executed a Release Deed in favour of their Brothers believing that properties of her Father will be sold and sale proceeds can be divided among them. The Respondent has contended that the Lease Deed was obtained from her under the pretext that it is required for sale of house property. It is the case of Respondent / Tenant that she is not a Tenant under the Petitioner / Landlord and as such eviction petition is not maintainable. 2. 3. Before the Courts below, the matter was hotly contested. Power Agent " Maternal Uncle of the Petitioner was examined as P. W. 1 and Exs. A. 1 to A. 4 were marked. The Respondent / Tenant examined herself as R. W. 1 and marked innumerable documents - Exs. B1 to B. 32. 2. 4. Learned Rent Controller found that Respondent herself admitted that she did not pay the rent claiming to be the legal heir and non-payment of rent amounts to Wilful Default and ordered Eviction. It was further held that having already given the Release Deed, it is not open to the Tenant to deny Title of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of Eviction, the Respondent / Tenant has preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Pointing out execution of Release Deed and Lease Deed, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and observed that after executing Release Deed, the Tenant has no right in the property and without paying any rent, she cannot remain in the petition mentioned property.

(3.) LAYING emphasis upon Lease Agreement, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Landlord has submitted that the Courts below concurrently held on factual aspects that the Respondent is a Tenant and that she has committed Wilful Default in payment of rent. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in M/s. Sri Rajalakshmi Dyeing Works . . Vs. . Rangaswamy Chettiar (A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1253), it was contended that under Section 25 of the Act, the High Court should not interfere on concurrent findings of facts decided by the Courts below based on evidence.