N RAMAN Vs. N PADMAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner. He sought the eviction of the respondent under Secs.10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the grounds of unauthorised subletting and the tenant ceasing to occupy the premises. THE allegations in support of the two grounds are as under; THE first respondent became a tenant in respect of Door No.8, C.B.Road, Chidambaram Nagar V Lane, Madras-21 under the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs.200 exclusive of electricity charges, the tenancy being for non-residential purposes namely, running a flour mill from September, 1981. In January, 1989 the first respondent unauthorisedly sublet the portion to the second respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.500. This was without the written consent of the landlord and against express prohibition contained in the terms of the agreement. In fact, second respondent preferred a police complaint against the first respondent on 2.9.1989 and the same was enquired into by the police authorities. THEre was a notice issued by the landlord on 11.9.1989 calling upon the respondent to vacate the property. Though the first respondent received the notice he did not send any reply nor did he comply with the demand therein. Again in view of the disputes between the first and the second respondents, the first respondent had virtually kept the premises under lock and key from September, 1989 and the same was not being used. Thus, the respondents had become liable to be evicted.

(2.) THE first respondent resisted the eviction petition on the following grounds: Ever since the lease in her favour she had been running the flour mill in the premises. She had not sublet the premises to the second respondent on the alleged rent of Rs.500. THE second respondent was a broker in chillies business. He was one of the customers of the first respondent who used to bring large quantities of chillies for powdering the same in the flour mill of the first respondent. THE second respondent did not pay the mill charges of chillies amounting to Rs.755. THE first respondent was constrained to press him for the payment of the said amount. THE second respondent therefore became inimical to the first respondent and went to the extent of lodging a false complaint against the first respondent in the police station. When the police were appraised of the true facts, the matter was closed. After the receipt of the lawyers notice, first respondent's husband approached the landlord who was also residing in the same premises and appraised him of the true and full facts regarding the disputes between the first and the second respondents, the landlord told the first respondent's husband that he had been wrongly informed by Narayanaswamy that the first respondent had sublet the property and therefore he was constrained to issue lawyer's notice. After knowing the full facts through the husband of the first respondent, the landlord told him to pay Rs.120 being the cost of the lawyer's notice. He also expressed regret for his hasty action. THE first respondent bona fide felt that there was no need to give a reply notice. THE subletting was a moonshine and the first respondent had not sublet the premises to the second respondent. THE story had been invented with ulterior motive. It was also false to state that she had kept the petition premises under lock and key at any time much less from. September, 1989. This ground also had been invented for evicting the first respondent. THE primary object of the landlord was to evict the first respondent and let out the property for higher rent after getting enormous pagidi. THE petition was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this reversal by the Appellate Authority the present C.R.P. has been filed by the landlord. Mr.N.S.Varadachari learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the following points: ? (i) The Appellate Authority failed to take note of the admission by the second respondent that he was a sub-lessee. ? (ii) The first respondent had not sent any reply to the notice issued on behalf of the landlord and this conduct would show that there had been subletting without the written consent of the landlord. ? (iii) The first respondent had admitted that there was an complaint lodged by the second respondent against the first respondent and in the complaint it is been specifically stated that the property had been let out by the first respondent's husband one Natarajan to the second respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.500 and the second respondent had paid a sum of Rs.2,000 as advance and that the first respondent's husband Natarajan had overlooked the premises and this would itself clearly show that there was parting of physical possession by the first respondent to the second respondent and there had therefore been subletting. ? (iv) The electricity consumption card would clearly show that the mill had not been running for a considerably long period and that therefore the second ground had also been made out.