GANAPATHY MURUGAN Vs. MADASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dtd. 25/2/2008, passed in R.C.A.No.22 of 2005, on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, reversing the fair and decreetal orders, dtd. 28/1/2005, passed in R.C.O.P.No.32 of 2003, on the file of the Rent Controller, Nagercoil.

(2.) The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the rent control original petition for the sake of convenience.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the landlords of the petition property and the respondent is occupying the same as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.250.00 and the tenancy is only as regards the running of a dyeing factory in the petition property and not for conducting any other business and the respondent had been paying the rent to the petitioners' mother, who died on 7/6/1999 and contrary to the terms of the tenancy, in the year 1996, the respondent had attempted to install a flour mill in the petition property and objecting to the same, the petitioners' mother preferred a suit in O.S.No.1055 of 1996, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, restraining the abovesaid initiative of the respondent and despite the order of injunction in favour of the petitioners' mother, the respondent had started the flour mill, without any authority and further stated that the respondent had paid the rent upto and inclusive of Adi 1171 M.E. (1996 A.D.) to the petitioners' mother and thereafter, failed to pay the rent and though it is seen that the respondent had deposited some amount towards the rent in the suit preferred by the petitioner's mother abovestated, but that cannot be construed as the proper remittance of the rent and thereby, according to the petitioners, the respondent had committed wilful default in the payment of the rent from Avani 1172 M.E. (1197 A.D.). The rented portion is partly put up with thatched roof and partly put up with tiled roof and the entire building is in a bad and dilapidated condition and the thatched portion is not fit to be used by the respondent any more and the entire petition property requires immediate demolition and re-construction and the rent paid by the respondent is very low and the petitioners seek to augment their income out of the petition property and accordingly, require the building for bona fide reasons for demolition and re-construction and accordingly, they had also obtained sanction from the Municipality concerned to put up new construction and the petitioners are having sufficient means for the same and undertake to complete the construction works within the stipulated time and therefore, sought for eviction of the respondent / tenant, on the grounds of wilful default, demolition and re-construction and also putting the petition property for a different user.