SURAJMAL SOWCAR AND SONS Vs. AROKIA MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above revisions arise out of the order passed by the VI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras (Appellate Authority) in R.C.A. 433 of 1983 as against the order of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, (Rent Controller) in HRC 5455 of 1981. C.R.P. 3821 of 1984 is filed by the landlord, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, challenging the correctness of one finding of the appellate authority and C.R.P.1018 of 1985 is filed by the tenant, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, challenging the correctness of another finding in the same order of the same appellate authority.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present revisions briefly are as follows - The proceedings related to a house bearing door No. 4 (old door No. 102) in Portuguese St, 7th Lane, Madras 1. The petitioner filed an application under S.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the averment that it was the owner of the superstructure in the petition premises, that the respondent was its tenant, that the respondent had committed wilful default in the payment of rent from April, 1972 to Sept., 1981, and that despite a notice dated 22-4-1981, rent had not been paid and the default being wilful eviction of the respondent was sought for.

(3.) The respondent resisted the above action on the allegation that the petitioner was not the owner of the superstructure, but that the superstructure had really been constructed b her and belonged to her, that,, therefore, there was no landlord-tenant relationship between them and hence the question of the respondent paying any rent to the petitioner did not arise and that there was no default much less any wilful default. It is the common case of both the parties that the site on which the superstructure is located belong to Sri Prasanna Venkatesaperumal Devastanam.