DORALI GOUNDER Vs. GANESHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant who suffered eviction before the authorities below has filed the above Revision. The landlady filed the H.R.C.O.P. No. 53 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirupattur, to vacate the Petitioner and one Rangan, from the premises in question under Ss. 10(2)(c), 10(2)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960. According to the landlady, the rent payable by the tenant was Rs. 45/ - Per month. The petitioner was running a 'Maligai' business, in the said premises. According to the landlady the petitioner herein committed default in payment of rent from October 1976. It is her further case that the petitioner is not running the 'Maligai' business in the said premises but he is running the said business in Cutchery Street and he had sub -let the northern portion of Door No. 27 to the second respondent in that R.C.O.P. on a monthly rent of Rs.60/ - without any consent of the landlady. According to the landlady, she wants to demolish the premises in order to construct a new building. According to her, she applied for necessary planning permission and obtained the same. She has also stated that she is having necessary funds for the demolition and reconstruction. On that basis the landlady has alleged that she requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction. The Petitioner herein filed a counter contesting the said H.R.C.O.P. He has stated that the averments regarding the sub -lease is false. He has specifically stated that he was not doing business in Cutchery Street and he has been carrying on the business only in the petition premises. He denied the allegation regarding the sub -leases. Regarding the payment of rent it is the case of the petitioner that he has paid rent for December 1976 and January 1977. But the landlady refused to accept the rent for February 1977 and so he sent the same by Money Order which was refused by the landlady. So the petitioner filed petition under Sec. 8 (5) of the Act and had been regularly depositing the rent in the said petition. With respect to the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction it was the case of the petitioner that the premises is not in dilapidated condition and the question of demolition would not arise. According to him, the petition was filed only with an ulterior motive to raise the rent. Hence the petitioner prayed for dismissal of that H.R.C.O.P.

(2.) The Rent Controller in his order dated 30.07.1984 accepting the case of the landlady found that the petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent, that the landlady bona fide requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction and that the petitioner had sub -let the premises without getting consent from the landlady. The tenant filed Appeal in R.C.A. No. 30 of 1984 on the file of the Appellate Authority, Sub -Judge, Tirupathur. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 25.08.1992 found that the petitioner has not committed wilful default and that the premises does not require any immediate demolition. But the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction on the ground that the petitioner had sub -let the promises, as contended by the landlady. Hence the petitioner/tenant has filed the above Revision.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant has submitted that the authorities below on the basis of the notice and summon served on the petitioner's wife's address came to an erroneous conclusion that the petitioner had sub -let the premises. According to him, in the absence of any direct evidence to show that the petitioner has sub -let the premises to the second respondent in the H.R.C.O.P., the authorities below should not have accepted the case of the landlady.