PATTAYAH ALIAS KUPPUSAMY NAIDU Vs. RANGASAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord arrived against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, dismissing the eviction petition, have filed the above Revision.

(2.) THE landlords filed RCOP No. 5/82 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Palani for evicting the tenants under Sections 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(iii), 14(1)(b) and 10(3)(a) of the Act 18 of 1960 as amended. The tenants contested the same by filing respective counter. The Rent Controller in his order dated 29.12.1987 accepting the case of the landlords on all the grounds ordered eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the second respondent in the RCOP filed Appeal in RCA No. 2 of 1987 on the file of the Appellate Authority, Dindigul. The Appellate Authority, accepting the case of the tenant reversed the findings of the Rent Controller, and consequently set aside the order of eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord/petitioners have filed the above Revision.

(3.) ACCORDING to the landlords, the tenants demolished the main compound wall of the building and had constructed shops and sublet the same to the respondents 4 to 11 in the RCOP without any written consent from them. So, according to them, such constructions and subletting are unauthorised and so the tenants are liable to be evicted. In reply to the same, the tenants have stated in the counter that on the basis of the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 12.5.1970, they have been authorised to enjoy the property as they like either to use the premises as boarding and lodging or by converting the same into shopping complex, and, as the vacant site also forms part of the properties, they can use the same as they like. On that basis it was alleged in the counter that only with the consent of the landlords, they put up the superstructures in the front portion of the vacant site. With respect to subletting, they sought to rely on the permission given in the lease deed dated 12.5.1970 by the then landlord. They have also relied on an unregistered agreement executed by the power agent of the then landlord to submit that all such constructions and subletting have been recognised and approved in the said lease deed.