J JERMONS Vs. ALIMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order C.R.P. No. 1582 of 1993 has been filed by the tenant J. Jermons against the judgment of the Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 12-4-1993 in R.C.A. No. 43 of 1991, reversing the order of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Valliyur, dated 30-4-1991 in R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1990. C.R.P. No. 1705 of 1993 has been filed by the legal representatives of the original landlord against the judgment of the Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in R.C.A. No. 43 of 1991 in so far as it is against them. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as landlord and tenant.

(2.) THE landlord S.A. Sahul Hameed filed R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1990 for evicting the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for own use and occupation. It is the contention of the landlord that his sons, who are respondents 2 to 4 in C.R.P. No. 1582 of 1993, are running a provision store under the name and style of Vasantham Shopping Centre at Tirunelveli and that the business has picked up well and has built up a reputation. Taking into consideration the great potential in the consumer goods market, especially household goods and other items, the landlord's sons have planned and decided to expand their business with Ervadi as their headquarters to cover the last developing market in Valliyur, and other coastal areas. THEy required the premises for their own use for the purpose of their own business. THEir requirement is bona fide. THE tenant was a chronic defaulter in the payment of rent. THErefore, the eviction petition was filed by the landlord. THE tenant filed a detailed counter inter alia contending that he has not committed wilful default and that the requirement is not bona fide. THE Rent Controller rejected the plea of wilful default on the ground that it is only the Income-tax Department which could maintain the petition. THE Rent Controller has also rejected the plea of requirement of the premises for own use on the ground that the landlord is already having a non-residential premises and hence the plea of requirement is not bona fide. THE landlord preferred an appeal. THE Appellate Authority rejected the claim of requirement for personal occupation. However, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. Aggrieved by the same, both parties have preferred the respective Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) THE landlord filed the eviction petition on two grounds viz. , (i) wilful default in payment of rent; and (ii) building is required for own use and occupation. It is not in dispute that the building leased out is a non-residential building. It is also not in dispute that the Income-tax Department has attached the rents in the hands of the tenant. THE landlord had admitted that the Income-tax Department which had attached the rent is the agent of the landlord for collecting the rent. In Paragraph 4 of the eviction petition the landlord had admitted that the Income-tax Department received the rent as the nominee of the landlord. It is further averred that the Income-tax Department is only an agent for collection of the rent. THErefore, there is no dispute that the Income-tax Department is the agent of the landlord for collecting the rent.