MAHBOOB ALI Vs. FATHIMA NACHIAR FAMILY TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner challenging the current findings of the authorities below ordering eviction from the petition premises on the ground that the 1st petitioner has sublet the petition premises to the 2nd petitioner and 3rd respondent.

(2.) The petition premises is situate in the building belonging to one A.M.Hameed Maraicar Family Trust and the respondents 1 and 2 are the trustees. The petition premises was taken on rent by the 1st petitioner in the year 1994 for the purpose of running a provision store. The rent for the premises was fixed at Rs. 300/- per month and the 1st petitioner had paid an advance amount of Rs. 900/-. Thereafter, on an allegation that the trustees were not receiving rent, the 1st petitioner has moved a petition under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1983 for depositing the rents into Court. After entering appearance in the above proceedings, the respondents 1 and 2 herein agreed to receive the rents. Initially, the 1st petitioner had paid the rents directly to the learned counsel for the respondents and thereafter, by Money Order to the trustees, who were managing the building of the trust.

(3.) In and around the year 2005, the 1st petitioner, who had started running the provisions store had sublet the premises to the 2nd petitioner and 3rd respondent, who were running a Tea Shop in the eastern side and Sweet Stall in the western side of the petition premises. The respondents contended that the 1st petitioner was receiving a total income of Rs. 250/- from the 2nd petitioner and 3rd respondent and a monthly income of Rs. 7,000/-. The 1st and 2nd respondents through an RTI query to the Municipality of Nagapattinam had come to know that the license in respect of the sweet stall stood in the name of the 2nd petitioner which clearly proved that there was subletting by the 1st petitioner. The trustees had addressed a letter dated 29.01.2005 asking clarifications from the 1st petitioner on 002.2005 and the 1st petitioner replied through his counsel contending that there is no stipulation in the Lease Deed that the 1st petitioner should only operate the provisions store in the petition premises and further denied the subletting.