REETHALAMMAL Vs. K. ARUMUGHAM PILLAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlady under the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the petitioner in this revision. The first respondent was the tenant and respondents 2 to 5 are arrayed as sub -tenants. The landlady filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Tenkasi, H.R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1973 under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. Certain facts not in dispute may be stated. The premises originally belonged to the first respondent and he othied the same in favour of one Ganapathi Joshier for Rs. 1,500 on 30th July, 1969 under Exhibit A -1. The first respondent himself took the building on lease from the said Ganapathi Joshier under Exhibit A -2. Under Exhibit A.2 the rate of rent reserved was Rs. 15 per month for a period of three years and thereafter, the rent was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 22.50 Ps. On 15th November, 1972, the said Ganapathi Joshier assigned the othi in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 1,500. The petitioner pursuant to the assignment asserted her rights as 'landlord' and demanded the rents and followed. it up by the action for eviction referred to above. The petition for eviction was contested in the main by the first respondent and he would contend that prior to the assignment in favour of the petitioner on 15th November, 1972, he (1st respondent has sub -let the building to respondent 3 to 5 and that it is not correct to say that he has agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 22.50 to Ganapathi Joshier.

(2.) THE Rent Controller who heard the matter, came to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rents and has further sub -let the building without the written con sent of the 'land lord' and hence, he is liable to be evicted along with the other respondents. The first respondent appealed in C.M.A. No. 42 of 1973, which came to be heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority), Tirunelveli by an order dated 19th August, 1974. The appellate authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction preferred by the petitioner. As against the said order, the present Revision is filed.

(3.) AS stated above, two grounds were put forth for eviction of the tenant, Viz., wilful default and sub -letting.