GUNAVATHY Vs. MURUGANANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is landlady and the respondent is tenant under her. The subject premises is a commercial building originally owned by one Jegadeesan/2nd respondent in CRP.132/09 who is the brother of the landlady's husband. The respondent is running a Printing Press since 1993. Initially, the rent for the premises was Rs. 600/- later enhanced to Rs. 900/-. The revision petitioner purchased the property on 02.05.2001. The contention of the revision petitioner is that after purchasing the property, she informed the tenant about the change of ownership and further asked him to pay the rent to her henceforth. However, the tenant failed to pay the rent from May 2001 to January 2002. The petition building is 75 years old and the revision petitioner intended to demolish and reconstruct. She requested the tenant to vacate the premises, but he refused to vacate. Hence, petition under Section 10(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

(2.) The respondent/tenant admits that he came into the premises as tenant under Jegadeesan for monthly rent of Rs. 600/- and later enhanced to Rs. 900/-. He denies knowledge of the change of ownership. He denies wilful default in payment of rent. The building is not 75 years old as claimed by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner never expressed her intention of demolishing the building nor asked him to vacate. He was regularly paying rent to Jegadeesan till the month of July 2001. When rent for the months of August and September 2001 was tendered, Jegadeesan refused to receive it. Hence, petition under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was filed seeking permission to deposit rent against Jegadeesan. Only from the counter in RCOP. No. 19/2001 filed by him, he came to know about the transfer of title and accordingly impleaded the present revision petitioner as 2nd respondent in the said RCOP. The revision petitioner has no wherewithal to put up new construction. So far, the tenancy has not attorned. Hence, the landlord tenant relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent also denied.

(3.) With the above pleadings, the parties contested the eviction petition and petition for deposit of rent. The Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction and dismissed the petition for deposit of rent. On appeal by the respondent/tenant, the orders of Rent Controller were reversed. Aggrieved by the reversing judgment, the landlady filed the present revisions.