MOHAN Vs. S RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 17.11.2016 passed in R.C.A.No.248 of 2016 on the file of the IX Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 09.10.2015 passed in R.C.O.P.No.320 of 2014 on the file of the XI Small Causes Court (Rent Controller) Chennai, by allowing this civil revision petition.

(2.) The revision petitioner is a tenant in a Rent Control Petition filed by the landlord / respondent herein in R.C.O.P.No.320 of 2014 before the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai. The eviction is sought for on two grounds namely 1.wilful default under section 10(2)(1) and demolition and reconstruction under section 14(b) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The eviction was ordered on the ground of willful default and rejected on the ground of demolition and reconstruction by the Learned Rent Controller. Against which the tenant filed R.C.A.No.248 of 2016 before the Learned IX Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai and the same was dismissed by order and decree dated 29.03.2016. As against the same the tenant has prepared this civil revision.

(3.) For better understanding the rank of the parties before the original proceeding is referred in the Civil Revision Petition. It is the case of the landlord that she purchased the petition premises under a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2004 which was marked as Ex.P4. The petition mentioned premise is a residential one. At the time of purchase, the tenant / petitioner herein was in occupation of the house as tenant and the admitted rent was Rs.2,500/-. The petition premise is 74 year old one and at the time of purchase by the respondent / landlord, the building was in dilapidated condition and a portion of the building fell down. There are other tenants in the property purchased by the landlord and she informed about the purchase of the building to all the tenants including the petitioner herein. All the tenants have vacated their respective building, except the petitioner herein. Further the petitioner herein has agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/- from March 2004 onwards, but he has not paid the same. Thereupon the tenant expressed his willingness to vacate the premises as it is not good for occupation. Thereafter, despite repeated demand made by the landlord, the tenant neither vacated the premise nor paid rent to the landlord. Hence the landlord filed the above R.C.O.P. for eviction against the tenant.