THAYARAMMAL Vs. CHANDRA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: - This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the order dated 03.12.2007 in RCA.No,6 of 2003 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Tribunal), Ranipet, confirming the order dated 23.04.2003 in RCOP.No,4 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, (Rent Controller), Ranipet.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners is present and argued the case. There is no representation to the learned counsel for the respondent even after 4.00 pm. Under this Revision the judgment passed in RCA.No,6 of 2003 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Ranipet is challenged.

(2.) THE landlord filed RCOP.No.19 of 1998 against the tenant under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. According to the landlord, the land of the petition scheduled premises belonged to Navalpur Mosque, Ranipet and the said land was taken on lease by the petitioner's father Poongavana Gounder some 50 years back from the then muthavali of the said Mosque. THEreafter, the said Poongavana Gounder had constructed a superstructure in the said site and was carrying on business of charcoal, oil, keroseine etc. And was also regularly paying the rent to the Muthavali of Navalpur Mosque. Since Poongavana Gounder could not carry on business, he closed the same about 15 years back and let out the building to the respondents for a monthly rent of Rs.130/- and the respondent conducting a welding shop in the petition scheduled premises. Poongavana Gounder died in the year 1993 while he was alive in the year 1991 he transferred the lease hold interest in respect of the petition scheduled premises in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner continues to pay the rent for the site to the Navalpur Mosque. According to the petitioner, the respondent had committed default in payment of rent from October-1996. THE petitioner issued legal notice dated 18.09.1997. But there was no reply to the said legal notice from the side of the respondent. THE rental arrears for 47 months is to be paid by the respondent. So on the ground of willful default, the tenant/respondent is liable to be evicted. Hence, the petition.

(3.) NOW the point for determination in this revision is whether the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No,6 of 2003 is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated in the ground of revision?