NASEEMA BEGUM Vs. MOHAMED AKBAR BADSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act 1960,against the fair and decretal order dated 13.11.2007 made in R.C.A.No.744 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority(VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai against R.C.O.P.No.298 of 2006 on the file of Rent Controller ( XV Judge), Court of Small Causes, Chennai dated 5.7.2006.) This revision has been preferred against the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Controller (XV Judge) Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.O.P.No.298 of 2006 which was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, ) Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A.No.744 of 2006. The second respondent in R.C.O.P.No.298 of 2006 is the revision petitioner herein. R.C.O.P.No.298 of 2006 was filed by one Mohamed Akbar Badsha against one Noorul Islam and Naseema Begum/revision petitioner herein under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control)Act(hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) ACCORDING to the landlord/respondent herein, the petition schedule building at Door No.40/42, Venkatesa Naicken First Street, Mount Road, Chennai-2 was leased out by the petitioner Mohamed Akbar Badsha to Noorul Islam for rent. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent Noorul Islam had sub let the said premises to the second respondent Naseema Begum, who is none other then his own sister. The said petition was resisted by Naseema Begum/revision petitioner/second respondent in R.C.O.P.No.298 of 2006 on the ground that even in an earlier petition filed by the landlord Mohamed Akbar Badsha in R.C.O.P.No.501 of 2002 which was filed against her mother Fathima Bi and her son Noorul Islam (first respondent in R.C.O.P.No.298/2006) for eviction and during the pendency of R.C.O.P.No.501 of 2002, the mother of Noorul Islam and Naseema Begum viz., Mrs. Fathima Bi died on 7.12.2002 and the second respondent Mrs. Naseema Begum and Mrs,Haseena were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased Fathima Bi in R.C.O.P.No.501 of 2002 and on contest, the said R.C.O.P.No.501 of 2002 was dismissed. Against the findings in R.C.O.P.No.501 of 2002, an appeal in R.C.A.No.116 of 2004 was preferred by the landlord Mohamed Akbar Badsha and the said R.C.A.No.116 of 2004 was also dismissed on 13.11.2007. After the dismissal of the said R.C.A.No.116 of 2004, the landlord Mohamed Akbar Badsha had filed the present R.C.O.P.No.298 of 2006 claiming that the first respondent let out the premises to the second respondent without the permission of the landlord and that he is liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act which cannot be sustainable.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that even in the earlier R.C.O.P.No.501 of 2002, the second respondent has been impleaded as the legal representative of Fathima Bi, the first respondent therein as her daughter. Along with her, the first respondent and other two sisters of the second respondents have also been impleaded as Legal representatives of the deceased Fathima Bi in R.C.O.P.No.501/2002. R.C.O.P.No.501 /2002 was also filed by the same landlord Mohamed Akbar Badsha in respect of the same building on the ground of owner's occupation. But the said R.C.O.P. was dismissed and an appeal preferred against the order in R.C.O.P.No.501/2002 under R.C.A.No.116 of 2004 was also dismissed. THE learned counsel has relied on the said Judgment in R.C.O.P.No.501 of 2002 to show that both the first respondent and the second respondent are the children of the deceased Fathima Bi and that they are brother and sister respectively.