S VISVANATHAN Vs. KALPANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the seventh respondent in RCOP.No.1 of 2008 and in E.P.No.105 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Dindigul (Rent Controller), has filed the above Civil Revision Petition, challenging the fair and decreetal order made in E.P.No.105 of 2016 in RCOP.No.1 of 2008, dated 05.09.2017.

(2.) The 1st respondent/landlord herein initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 7 herein /tenants in RCOP No.1 of 2008 under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3A)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. The Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Dindigul, after considering the facts and circumstances, had allowed RCOP.No.1 of 2008, on 04.06.2014. Subsequently, the landlady filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.105 of 2016 for delivery of possession and thereafter, delivery was ordered on 05.09.2017. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The petitioner /tenant would submit that he is running a jewellery shop in the petition mentioned property for the past 70 years and the landlady's contention that she wants the petition mentioned property for her use is absolutely false. The landlady offered to sell the property at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per square feet and the tenant also accepts for the same. Whenever the tenant went to pay the rent, the landlady refused to receive the rent stating that at the time of completion of sale process, the rent can be adjusted. Thereafter, the landlady issued notice to the tenant to vacate the property and the tenant has issued a reply on 20.12.2017 stating that the landlady's husband was running a shop in another place and therefore, the landlady is not in urgent requirement of the petition mentioned property for own use. It is the contention of the tenant that since the landlady wanted to sell the same to some other third party for higher amount, she has initiated the proceedings. The landlady was under the impression that if the tenants are evicted then she would sell the property for higher rates. But the landlady had made false allegations and had obtained an order in her favour.