S SUNDARARAJAN Vs. S A VISWANATHAN CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT is the revision petitioner, who is the second respondent in the eviction petition.

(2.) AT the time of initiation of eviction proceedings, there was only one respondent, i.e., the brother of the revision petitioner. Subsequently, when an objection was raised by first respondent stating that the eviction petition is bad for non-joinder, revision petitioner was also added as an additional party.

(3.) IT is further averred in the petition that the landlord is running a grain business in a rented premises and, therefore, he wanted the schedule building for his own occupation. When such a demand was made, the tenant filed O.S. No. 86 of 1986 before District Munsif's Court, Salem and obtained an interim order restraining the landlord from dispossessing him without having recourse to law. IT is the case of the landlord that once the term has expired, the occupation of the premises by the tenant becomes wrongful, and he is bound to surrender vacant possession of the same. IT is further averred that the last payment of rent was on 18.12.1985, and, on the date of eviction petition, more than seven months' rent was in arrears. To prevent the landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of default, tenant, without any bona fides, has invoked the provisions of Sec. 8(5) of the Act, and has filed R.C.O.P. No. 85 of 1986 and sought permission to deposit rent in Court. Under the above circumstances landlord sought for eviction of the tenant on two grounds, namely. (1) that he has committed wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) that he requires the buildings bona fide for his own occupation. The eviction petition was filed on 28.3.1986.