RAMAKRISHNA AND BROS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THRO ONE OF ITS PARTNERS M PARAMASIVAM Vs. T P N MANICKAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant before both the forums has preferred this revision challenging the order of eviction passed against him.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows: For the sake of convenience, we will adopt the array of parties before the Rent Controller, in this revision. THE petitioner, who is the respondent in this revision, is the landlady, and she has filed the petition under Ss.l0(2)(i) and 14(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. According to the petitioner, she purchased the petition mentioned property on 29.9.1975. THE respondent Has been occupying the premises for carrying on business on a monthly rent of Rs. 155. THE rent is to be paid on the 5th of the next month. THE respondent attorned the oral tenancy in favour of the petitioner. Since the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent, the petition R.C.O.P. 84 of 1978 was filed and it was allowed. As against that, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.23 of 1981 before the Appellate Authority. While the C.M.A. was pending the respondent failed to pay arrears of rent commencing from May,-1982, to the end of June 1983, for a period of 13 months to the tune of Rs.2,015. Hence, he has committed wilful default in payment of rent. Further the petitioner requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction in order to augment her income. She obtained necessary licence and sanction from the Municipality. She also gave the necessary statutory undertaking that she would demolish the building within one month after getting vacant possession and commence construction within three months thereafter.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner has raised a preliminary objection that the eviction petition filed by the landlord against the firm represented by one of its partners is not maintainable and that the eviction petition is to be dismissed solely on this ground. It was also submitted that in any event if the Court is inclined to implead the parties, the matter may be remitted back to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal giving opportunity to the newly added parties to file their counter and resist the claim of the landlord. To get over the same, the respondent landlord has filed the petition in C.M.P.No.5525 and 5524 of 1988 to implead the other partners as respondents 2 to 4 in C.R.P.3482 of 1987 and R.C.O.P.No.127 of 1983 which is the subject matter of the C.R.P. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that the present application for impleading the partners is filed at the belated stage and that the landlord should not be permitted to implead them at this stage as there was no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses by them.