M. SUBBIYAN Vs. K.C. VITTAL RAO (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order and decreetal order dated 05.01.2010 made in RCA. No. 56 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Trichirappalli, confirming the order and decreetal order dated 19.07.2002 made in RCOP. No. 182 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Controller/(First Additional District Munsif), Trichirappalli.

(2.) The facts of the case are that originally, the 1st respondent filed RCOP. No. 182 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Controller/(First Additional District Munsif), Trichirappalli, seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the demised premises on the ground of own use and occupation stating that the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and the 1st respondent is a retired railway employee. After retirement, he wanted to reside in the demised premises and therefore, he sent a letter dated 20.12.1993 to the petitioner for vacating the premises, for which, the petitioner did not reply. Hence, he sought for eviction of the petitioner.

(3.) The revision petitioner filed counter in RCOP contending that the monthly rent was Rs. 190/- only and not Rs. 200/- as alleged by the 1st respondent and the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the demised premises even before 1977. The demised premises was originally a thatched house which was washed away by the floods in November 1977 and thereafter, after getting permission from the 1st respondent, the petitioner put up a new thatched house by spending his own funds at Rs. 5,353.25/-. In the year 1988, the 1st respondent permitted the petitioner to put up a tiled house and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 14,484.25/- was spent by the petitioner for the construction of the tiled house and the petitioner was paying house tax in respect of the demised premises in the name of the 1st respondent. It was further stated that consequent to the public notice issued by Srirangam Municipality, the 1st respondent permitted the petitioner to construct latrine in the demised premises, but later, by letter dated 15.01.1993, the 1st respondent expressed his disinclination for construction of latrine and therefore, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 1025/1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli, and obtained adinterim injunction restraining the 1st respondent from preventing the petitioner to put up latrine in the demised premises. Thereafter, the 1st respondent sent an advocate notice dated 11.05.1994 to the petitioner seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default and own use and occupation. According to the petitioner, the requirement of demised premises for own use and occupation of the 1st respondent is not bona fide. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the RCOP.