PADMAVATHY AND ANOTHER Vs. N. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords who failed before the learned Appellate Authority have filed the above Revision. The petitioners filed R.C.O.P. No. 3981 of 1983, on the file of the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras under Ss. 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. The respondent became a tenant on 26.3.1975 on a monthly rent of Rs.65/ - and paid a rental advance of Rs.1,500/ -. In January 1978 the rent was increased to Rs.200/ - per month and he paid a sum of Rs.9,000/ - as advance which has to be adjusted for the period from January 1978 to September 1981, and after such adjustment, according to the petitioners, the tenant did not pay the rent for the period from October 1981 to July 1983. A notice was caused to be sent through one Mohammed Ishaq, Advocate. The tenant sent a reply to the said notice stating that the demised property was sold to the respondent's wife on 7.1.1978. It is the further case of the landlords that the tenant has sublet the premises to one Venu who was doing business on the date of the petition in the premises and the tenant/respondent is collecting the rent from him. On those two grounds the petitioners filed the eviction petition.

(2.) The tenant contested the petition by filing a counter stating that the tenancy relied on by the landlords came to an end on 7.1.1978 when the petitioners and their son executed a deed of sale in favour of the respondent's wife in respect of the superstructure occupied by the tenant/respondent and possession was delivered to the wife of the respondent. According to the tenant a valuable consideration of Rs.9,000/ - was paid. On the basis of the above said averments the tenant denied the grounds of wilful default and subletting. Thus the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) The Rent Controller after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence allowed that petition. Aggrieved against the same the tenant filed R.C.A. No. 486 of 1987. The Appellate Authority/VII Judge, Court of Small Causes on the basis of the contents of Ex.P -10, though those contents were not marked as exhibit, allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of eviction. Aggrieved against the same the landlords have filed the above Revision.