RAMAKRISHNAN AND BROS Vs. T P M MANICKAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant before both the forms has preferred this revision challenging the order of eviction passed against him.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows: For the sake of convenience we will adopt the array of parties before the Rent Controller, in this revision. THE petitioner, who is the respondent in this revision, is the landlady, and she has filed the petition under S. 10 (2) (i) and 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act. According to the petitioner, she purchased the petition mentioned property on 23-9-1975. THE respondent has been occupying the premises for carrying on business on a monthly rent of Rs. 155. the rent is to be paid on the 5th of the next month. THE respondent attorned the oral tenancy in favour of the petitioner. Since the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent, the petition R. C. O. P. No. 84 of 1978 was filed and it was allowed. As against that, the respondent filed C. M. A. No. 23 of 1981 before the Appellate authority. While the C. M. A. was pending the respondent failed to pay arrears of rent commencing from May, 1982 to the end of June, 1983 for a period of 13 months to the tune of Rs. 2,015. Hence, he has committed wilful default in payment of rent. Further, the petitioner requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction in order to augment her income. She obtained necessary licence and sanction from the municipality. She also gave the necessary statutory undertaking that she would demolish the building within one month after getting vacant possession and commence construction within three months thereafter.

(3.) BUT, the real controversy that arises as regards this point in whether the matter is to be remitted back to the trial court to give an opportunity to the newly added parties or the revision has to be disposed of here itself after impleading the parties, or merits, on the available records. In the above quoted Supreme Court case, the maintainability of the eviction petition against the firm alone, without impleading the other partners, was raised as a preliminary objection and the said question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. In the circumstances. The Supreme Court allowed the application to amend the cause title of the original petition by impleading the partners of the firm and remitted the case back to the Rent Controller so that he may dispose of it on merits. It is observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the newly added respondents will file their written statement in answer to the application for eviction within a further period of four weeks thereafter and the Rent Controller will then proceed to dispose of the application for eviction as expeditiously as possible. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew another decision of this court reported in n. S. Doshi and Co. v. P. Ganesan, 1987 T. L. N. J. 305, where Sivas-ubramaniam, J. , in similar circumstances allowed the application to implead parties and permitted the respondent-landlord to amend the cause title of the original petition and all other connected proceedings by adding the names of the partners of the first respondent-firm as respondents along with the firm, and without going into the merits of the case, remitted back to the appellat authority after giving liberty to the Appellate Authority to consider the evidence afresh and dispose of the matter on merits. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner relied on these decisions and requested this court to remit back the matter either to the Appellate Authority or to the Rent Controller to give an opportunity to the newly added parties to file their objections, give opportunity to adduce fresh evidence if necessary and dispose of the same on merits.