UMRAO BAI Vs. DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been directed against R. C. A No. 1586 of 1981 on the file of the Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The petitioner herein is the landlady and the respondents are the tenants. The petition mentioned building originally belonged to one Mahabooba Bi and rents used to be collected by her agent named Alla Baksha. The first respondent was the actual tenant and the second respondent was a sub-tenant. The second respondent has been acting as the agent of the first respondent, claiming to be the head of the family. A registered will was executed by the said Mahabooba Bi on 9-4-1976 under which the petition premises was bequeathed to her daughter by name Fathima Bi. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the same under a sale deed dated 27-6-1979. According to her the first respondent was a tenant paying a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- and the second respondent is her uncle and agent of the first respondent. The third respondent occupying a portion of the building is a sub-tenant. Soon after the purchase, the petitioner gave the notice dated 2-7-1979 to the respondents requesting them to attorn their tenancy in her favour. The second respondent claimed that he was not a tenant. Again another notice was sent by the petitioner on 4-12-1979 to the respondents requesting them to vacate the premises as she required it for demolition and reconstruction. The respondents did not pay any rent. Yet another notice was sent on 2-7-1980. Even then the rents were not paid. The first respondent sent a reply in which she stated that she was not at all a tenant under the petitioner and that the third respondent was her sub-tenant. A final notice was issued by the petitioner on 19-9-1980 giving time till 31-10-1980 to vacate the premises. As the respondents failed to do so, the petitioner filed the petition H. R. C. No. 632 of 1981 for eviction on the grounds of wilful default and for requirement for demolition and reconstruction. It was contended by the petitioner that the petition premises is a very old one and is in a dilapidated condition. The second respondent filed a counwr affidavit resisting the application on the ground that the rent was only Rs. 60/- per month and not Rs. 125/- per month. It was, however, contended that the sale to the petitioner by Fathima Bi is not valid and that the alleged will was not probated. He went to the extent of stating that no title vested in the vendor and therefore, she cannot pass any title to the petitioner. According to him the petition premises is in a sound state and does not require any demolition. He referred to the earlier proceedings In H. R. C. No. 684 of 1975. The said counter affidavit was adopted by the other respondents.

(2.) Learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of the evidence adduced before him, came to the conclusion that there was no wilful default, since the respondents 1 and 2 deposited the amount in a bank and after the eviction petition was filed the same was withdrawn and deposited to the credit of the rent control petition. However, it was held that the quantum of rent was Rs. 80/- per month and not Rs. 125/- per month as claimed. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller held that there was no wilful default on the part of the respondents. As regards demolition and reconstruction learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner has not established that it is an old building requiring demolition and therefore, landlady is not entitled to ask for demolition on that ground. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in R. C. A. No. 1586 of 1981 before the Appellate Authority, Madras. During the pendency of the appeal certain additional documents were filed by the petitioner to prove the age of the building and the demand made by her for payment of the rent. Similarly, the respondents filed a certificate from the bank to show that they had account in the said bank. After considering the evidence already on record, and additional evidence adduced by the parties the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the said decision, the present revision petition has been filed by the landlady.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the sale deed EX.P.1 was executed on 2-7-1979 by one Fathima Bi, who had derived absolute title from her mother Mahabooba Bi. He pointed out that, even before the said sale deed, the other heirs of Mahabooba Bi had executed a registered release deed dated 27-3-1976. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to the title of the landlady to the petition premises. It is further submitted that whatever might be the doubt prevailing, originally, the tenants were not justified in refusing to pay the rents after the notice was issued by the landlady. Learned counsel contended that ample evidence had been let in to show the age and condition of the building and the authorities below were not justified in negativing the said condition solely on the ground that no expert witness was examined in this regard.