R. GOVINDARAJ Vs. V. VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the tenant under this respondent/landlady. He has been occupying the building belonging to her. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.52 of 2003 on the file of the (III Additional District Munsif) Tiruchirapalli, under two grounds. One is on wilful default and another is for demolition and reconstruction. In the petition, she has alleged that the monthly rent for the building occupied by the petitioner herein was Rs.300/ - and advance received for the said building was Rs.5,000/ -. Presently, the payment of rent is Rs.500/ - per mensem, that from January, 2003 onwards, the tenant has been in wilful default by non -payment of rent, and that the building is aged about 60 years and hence, it has to be demolished and reconstructed for which she has got necessary funds, that on 18.1.2003, she issued notice to the petitioner/tenant for which, he sent a reply containing false allegations and hence, eviction has to be ordered.

(2.) IN the counter filed by this petitioner/tenant, it is stated that even though he was willing to pay the rent from January, 2003 to the landlady, from 28.2.2003 her own sister by name one Bethulakshmi was demanding the rent by sending a notice, that there was misunderstanding among the family members of the landlady with regard to the family properties, that he filed O.S.No.254 of 2003 against the said Bethulakshmi, in which he has deposited the entire arrears of rent, that even though it is intended to be demolished and reconstructed, there is no document to show that it is an old one and that the petition has been filed with a mala fide intention and hence, it has to be dismissed.

(3.) AFTER considering the oral evidence and records adduced by both parties, the learned Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli, dismissed the application R.C.O.P.No.52 of 2003. Aggrieved with the same, the landlady/respondent, carried the matter in appeal R.C.A.No.35 of 2004 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli. The said authority allowed the appeal with costs directing this petitioner to vacate the building within three months' from the date of that order. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.