NAGASAMY CHETTIAR Vs. FATHIMA GANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decreta order passed in R.C.A. No.5 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee dated 27.02.2007, confirming the order in R.C.O.P No.5 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Poonamallee dated 12.08.2004.

(2.) The facts of the case is as follows :- The petitioner filed R.C.O.P No.5 of 2001 before the District Munsif, Poonamallee under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) and (b), 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, seeking to evict the respondents from the schedule mentioned premises of the petitioner on the grounds of, sub-letting, using the premises for different purpose other than for which it was let out, for owner's occupation and for repair and reconstruction. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the demised property. The petitioner's father Nagaswamy Chettiar, had let out the demised property to one Mr. Sikkanthar, husband of the 1st respondent, father of the 2nd and

(3.) rd respondents and father-in-law of the 4th respondent. The aforesaid Sikkanthar was a tenant under the petitioner's father and was running foot wear business, as per the agreement entered between the petitioner's father and the deceased Sikkanthar. At the time of entering the agreement in the year 1978, rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.200/- and the same was increased periodically by renewing the agreement. The said agreement was renewed till 1993. As per the last renewal in the year 1993, the period of rental agreement expires on 06.02.1998, after five years period. According to the petitioner, after the expiry of the said agreement period, the petitioner requested to deliver the vacant possession of the demised premises. Considering the request of Sikkanthar, the petitioner allowed him to continue in possession, for further few months, on humanitarian grounds. In the meanwhile, the said Sikkanthar passed away in the year 1998 and the respondents 1 to 3, who are the legal heirs of the said Sikkanthar, continued in possession, without the consent of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's father had caused legal notice on 10.10.2000 to the respondents, to vacate the premises. 3. It is a specific case of the petitioner that the said demised property has been sub-let by the respondents, in violation to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Inspite of the legal notice caused by the petitioner's father, the respondents refused to vacate the premises. Therefore, he instituted a case in R.C.O.P No.5/2001 before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, to evict the respondents, on the grounds of illegally sub-letting the premises to the 4th respondent, the premises is not being used for the purpose of running foot wear business as per the tenancy agreement, the demised premises is a old one and requires to be renovated and lastly, for the purpose of own use by the petitioner to run a tailor shop in the demised premises. The respondents filed a written statement in the aforesaid R.C.O.P contending that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and denied the allegation of sub- letting to a third party and disputed the ownership occupation of the petitioner and also denying the other grounds raised by the petitioner and hence pleaded for dismissal of the RCOP, before the Rent Control Authority.