BOSE Vs. CHOCKALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant has come forward with the above civil revision as against the fair and decreetal order dtd. 21/4/2017 in R.C.A. No. 8 of 2016, on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, confirming the fair and decreetal order dtd. 11/3/2016 in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2012, on the file of the learned Rent Controller and Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

(2.) The Petition premise originally belonged to one SP.V. Alagappa Chettiar and the revision petitioner was tenant under him. The revision petitioner was running Jewellery shop in the petition premise. In the said circumstances the respondent herein issued notice dtd. 29/6/2011 and made claim as if he had purchased the property from the said SP.V. Alagappa Chettiar through registered sale deed dtd. 7/5/2001. Further claimed that revision petitioner/tenant had failed to pay rent from 2001 to 2011 and that the building is more than 50 years old and the same is in dilapidated condition. Hence it needs immediate demolition. For which detailed reply was given by the revision petitioner vide reply dtd. 13/7/2011. Having not satisfied with reply respondent initiated Rent Control Proceedings before the learned Rent controller under Sec. 14(1)(b), 10(2)(i) and Sec. 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act.

(3.) The revision petitioner herein contested the RCOP that he was a tenant in petition premise under one SP. V. Alagappan and that he was not informed about the purchase of petition premise by the respondent herein and that the said facts only came to his knowledge only when he received notice dtd. 29/6/2011. Further previous owner had not given any information about the sale deed executed by him in favour of the respondent herein and that the petition premise is not in a dilapidated condition and that he had not made any willful default in payment of rent. Infact said SP. V. Alagappa Chettiar went abroad and did not claim rent from the revision petitioner and hence the revision petitioner was not able to pay the rent, during relevant time 2001 to 2011.