M R SAHUL HAMEED Vs. N R THANIKACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING concurrent findings and Eviction Order passed by Rent Control Authorities, Tenants have preferred these Civil Revision petitions.

(2.) 1. These Revisions arise on the following facts:-Demised premises is Door No. 11, Krishnan Koil Street, also known as No. 11, Rotters Lane , George Town , Chennai. The same was purchased by Landlords / respondents from M/s. Appavoo Chettiar and Dhanalakshmi Ammal by a Registered sale Deed on 13. 11. 1995. Respondents issued Ex. P. 5 " Notice (dated 15. 11. 1996) calling upon Tenant to vacate the premises as he failed to pay the rent from November 1995 onwards and the said Notice was returned unserved. Vendor " Appavoo Chettiar also issued Ex. P. 9 " Letter informing about the Sale Deed and calling upon Tenant to attorn tenany in favour of respondents. But, the Tenant has committed default in payment of rent. Respondents have filed R. C. O. P. No. 2793 of 1996 for eviction on the ground of demolition and Reconstruction and R. C. O. P. No. 987 of 1997 for eviction on the ground of Wilful Default in payment of rent from November 1995 to April 1997. 2. 2. Tenant resisted Eviction Petition contending that appavoo Chettiar assured to sell petition property to him, but clandestinely sold to the Respondents. According to the Tenant, the said Appavoo Chettiar was collecting rent even after alleged sale in favour of Respondents. It was the further case of Tenant that he had paid a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as rental advance to Appavoo Chettiar and even if there is any rental arrears, it can be well adjusted from the same. Regarding the Eviction Petition on the ground of demolition and Reconstruction, Tenant had resisted the Petition contending that there is no bonafide requirement. 2. 3. The Rent Controller held that there was no proof regarding payment of Rs. 23,000/- as rental advance and there was arrears of rent even after filing of rent control proceedings and ordered eviction. Finding that building is aged 75 years and the condition of the same is dilapidated, eviction was also ordered on the ground of Demolition and reconstruction. 2. 4. Aggrieved by order of eviction, Tenant has preferred appeals. During pendency of Appeals, Tenant passed away and Revision petitioners were impleaded as Legal Representatives of the Tenant. Finding that the Tenant has not paid the rent from March 1995, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. Pointing out the inconsistent version regarding the payment of arrears, Appellate Authority negatived the contention of payment of rental advance of Rs. 23,000/ -. Order of eviction on the ground of Demolition and Reconstruction was also confirmed.

(3.) WILFUL Default:- Main contention of Petitioners is that Tenant has paid a huge sum of Rs. 23,000/- as rental advance, for which reliance was placed on Ex. R. 3 " Endorsement. In Ex. P. 2 " notice issued by Tenant " Mohamed Razack, the quantum of rental advance was stated as Rs. 24,500/ -. The Tenant has also filed O. S. No. 7986 of 1995 for permanent Injunction against Appavoo Chettiar and in the Affidavit filed by him seeking ad-interim injunction, quantum of rental advance is pleaded as rs. 24,500/ -. The Tenant has given a different version in respect of quantum of rental advance as Rs. 23,000/- and Rs. 24,500/ -. Pointing out inconsistency in quantum of rental advance paid, Courts below disbelieved the plea of payment of rental advance of Rs. 23,000/ -.