PANKAJAM AMMAL AND ORS. Vs. THULASIDOSS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below have filed the above Revision.

(2.) The landlords filed R. CO.P. No. 16 of 1989 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Karur to evict the tenants, under Ss. l0(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended. In the petition it is stated that by a settlement deed dated 9.2.1962. one Govindarajulu Naidu who is the original owner of the property settled the property in question along with the other properties in favour of his sons, including one G. Ramachandran who is the husband of the second petitioner. He died issueless. But, during his lifetime, on 6.3.1963, the second petitioner in the R.C.O.P. and her husband duly adopted the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P. She had executed a release deed in respect of her life -interest in the property in favour of the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P., the adopted son. According to the landlords, the factum of adoption was made known to the tenants. Inspite of the same, they have not paid the rent to the landlords. But, on the other hand, they denied the title of the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P. On that basis the landlords claimed that on the ground of denial of title, the tenants are liable to be evicted. It is their further case that the tenants have not paid rent since January, 1988, in spite of demand and so they committed wilful de -fault in payment of rent. With respect of their requirement for demolition and reconstruction, it is the case of the landlords that the petition mentioned property is situated in a prominent locality at Karur. For the purpose of augmenting the income and to have better return from the said property they want to demolish the entire superstructure and put up new construction over the site. According to the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P., he is having necessary resources for the same. It is stated in the petition that the first petitioner has become the landlord and so he has filed the petition and to avoid technical objection from the tenants, the second petitioner also had been impleaded as a party. She has also verified the petition. This petition was objected by the tenants by filing a detailed counter. In the counter it is stated that the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P. cannot get any right in the property on the basis of the alleged adoption. They have also submitted that the adoption and release deeds are illegal. With respect to the payment of rent, money orders were sent on 18.1.1988 and 15.2.1988 etc., to the second petitioner in the R.C.O.P. but she refused to receive the same. As soon as the R.C.O.P. was filed, they have immediately paid all the rent up -to -date. With respect to the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction, it is the case of the tenants that such requirement is not a bona fide one. It is only with an oblique motive to evict the tenants, and the landlords have no funds for the same.

(3.) The Rent Controller in his order dated 6.7.1990 allowed the eviction petition accepting the case of the landlords. Aggrieved against the same, the tenants filed R.C.A. No. 19 of 1990 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/Sub Judge, Karur. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 29.7.1992 found that the denial of title by the tenants cannot be construed as a bona fide one, that the tenants have committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the requirement of building for demolition and reconstruction by the landlords cannot be said to be bona fide one. On the basis of the above finding, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of eviction. Further aggrieved, the tenants have filed the above revision.