ARJUNAN Vs. GOVINDAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the Judgment in RCA.No.69 of 2007 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which had arisen out of the order in RCOP.No.916 of 2004 on the file of the XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The unsuccessful tenant before the Courts below is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) THE short facts of the petition in RCOP.No.916 of 2004 runs as follows:- THE petitioner is the owner of the property bearing New Door No.42, Old Door No.16/1, Valmiki Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. THE first respondent is the tenant in respect of the shop premises in the property bearing New No.42 Old No.16/1, Valmiki Street, Thiruvanmiyur, which is the petition scheduled property. THE petition schedule property was let out to the first respondent for non-residential purpose. THE first respondent is carrying on wine shop business in the petition scheduled property. THE petitioner has also consented the first respondent to carry on wine-shop business in the said property. THE first respondent carried on business under the name and style of M/s. Thiruvanmiyur Wines in the petition schedule property. THE monthly rent for the premises is Rs.5,500/- exclusive of electricity charges and the same is to be paid as per the meter readings. THE monthly rent is to be paid on or before 5th of every succeeding English calendar month. THE Government of Tamil Nadu has passed a GO under which the licence granted in favour of the 1st respondent came to an end. Instead of handing over the vacant possession of the shop premises to the petitioner, the 1st respondent erected a wall in the petition scheduled property and thereby divided the shop portion into two portions. THE 1st respondent let out one of the shop portion to Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, the second respondent, to carry on the wine shop business in the petitioner's shop premises without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner. THE said act of the 1st respondent invites action for eviction on the ground of subletting of the shop premises to the 2nd respondent. On account of the erection of dividing wall, the 1st respondent has damaged the floor and roof of the building, thus has committed the act of waste. THE first respondent has also set up a fast food shop in the remaining portion of the shop premises and thereby changed the business for which the shop premises was originally let out to him. Apart from the act of sub-letting, act of waste and change of business, the first respondent has also committed default in payment of rent for the period from January-2004 onwards. THE first respondent caused an undated letter in the month of April-2004 and alleged that he has paid corporation tax for the entire property. Infact the petitioner has not authorized him or permitted him or consented to pay tax on her behalf to the Municipal authorities. THE payment of Municipality Tax to the petition schedule property by the first respondent is an unilateral act. THE petitioner has sent a suitable reply dated 11.5.2005 to the above said undated letter sent by the first respondent. THE petitioner has also terminated the tenancy and called upon the first respondent to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition scheduled property. THE said reply letter was returned with an endorsement as 'information-delivered'. THE first respondent has withheld the payment of rent for the period from January-2004 to May 2004. THE said non-payment of rent is nothing but deliberate, wilful and supine indifference on the part of the first respondent. Apart from that the first respondent has also sublet the portion of the petition scheduled property to the second respondent by erection of dividing walls without the consent of the petitioner. THE petitioner has not recognized the tenancy of the second respondent as such the occupation of the second respondent is illegal. Hence, the petition for eviction.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Rent Controller, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On the said of the respondents R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was marked. After giving meticulous consideration to the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller finding that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent and has also sublet the petition scheduled premises without the consent of the landlord-petitioner and also committed waste by constructing a wall across the petition scheduled premises, had ordered eviction giving two months time to the respondents to vacate and handover vacant possession of the property to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the first respondent has preferred an appeal in RCA.No.69 of 2007 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after giving due deliberations to the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, as per the order passed in M.P.No.86 of 2007 in RCA.No.69 of 2007 after receiving two documents produced by the respondents in appeal as Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 respectively and after scanning the evidence both oral and documentary, finding no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Rent Controller, has dismissed the appeal thereby confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.916 of 2004, which necessitated the tenant / first respondent to approach this Court by way of this revision.