A. ALAGIYANATHAN Vs. M. SWAMINATHA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT falls for consideration in this revision petition, preferred by a tenant, is whether one of the two co -owners of a building is entitled to independently file a petition against a tenant to seek his eviction on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) without the consent or knowledge of the other co -owner.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: The petition premises, which is residential building was originally owned by one Rayappa Pillai and the petitioner became a tenant under him. After the death of Rayappa Pillai, his nephews, viz., the respondent and his brother succeeded to the property. By arrangement, the respondent and his brother were collecting in equal shares the rent of Rs. 27 paid by the petitioner for the building. In. that situation, the respondent filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Salem, praying for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent and furthermore, he bona fide required the building for his son's occupation. To the said petition, the respondent did not implead his brother as a party; nor did he put forth a contention that the eviction of the tenant was sought for on behalf of the other co -owner also. The tenant, by means of an additional counter -affidavit, raised an objection to the maintainability of the petition without the other co -owner also being a party to the proceedings. The Rent Controller relying upon Shanmuga Appah v. Abdul Hameed : AIR 1974 Mad 133 sustained the objection of the tenant and dismissed the petition. On the landlord filing an appeal, the Principal Subordinate Judge of Salem, who is the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and held that the petition was maintainable and that on merits, the landlord was entitled to get an order of eviction in his favour. It is as against that order, the tenant has come forward with this revision.

(3.) BEFORE considering the arguments of the learned Counsel, it will be useful to refer to the definition of 'landlord' in Section 2(6) of the Act and the interdiction contained in Section 10(8) of the Act on agents acting as landlords from instituting eviction proceedings without the written consent of the landlord.