N SARASWATHI Vs. K R RAJAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 01. 10. 2007 made in R. C. A. No. 7 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, confirming the fair and decreetal order, dated 10. 01. 2007 made in R. C. O. P. No. 20 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller/i Additional District Munsif, Salem.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the respondent herein, as landlord filed a petition against the revision petitioner/tenant, under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [herein after referred to as Act], to evict the revision petitioner. According to the respondent, being the owner of the building, bearing Door No. 12, Fort Main Road, Salem-2, he is residing in a portion of the ground floor and carrying on hardware business in the first floor of the petition mentioned building and the revision petitioner is carrying on his business in the ground floor, as a tenant and that the respondent/landlord is in need of the petition mentioned premises for his own use and occupation.

(3.) EARLIER, the respondent/landlord had filed R. C. O. P. No. 68 of 1999 for evicting the revision petitioner under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act on the file of the District Munsif, Salem. The petitioner entered appearance through her counsel and was contesting the case. However on 14. 11. 2000, both the parties to the R. C. O. P made an endorsement, whereby the revision petitioner/tenant agreed to vacate the petition mentioned property on 01. 04. 2006, after getting the advance amount paid by her. It was agreed between the parties that the rent to be paid up to 31. 03. 2002 at Rs. 5,000/- per month, from 01. 04. 2002 to 31. 03. 2004 at Rs. 5,500/- per month and from 01. 04. 2004 to 31. 03. 2006 at Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner/tenant had paid an advance of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the respondent/landlord towards rental agreement. Since the revision petitioner had not vacated and handed over the petition premises, the respondent/lanlord filed R. C. O. P. No. 20 of 2006 against the revision petitioner/tenant under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. The revision petitioner had also filed a suit in O. S. No. 278 of 2006 against the respondent before the First Additional District Munsif, Salem, seeking permanent injunction not to evict her from the suit property. After trial, considering the oral and documentary evidence, by Judgment, dated 10. 01. 2007, the suit filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed as no merits.