S GURUSAMY NADAR DIED Vs. ANDAL AMMAL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE C.R.P. has been filed by the tenants against the concurrent decision of the Rent Controler and the Appellate Authority ordering their eviction. THE grounds on which the eviction was sought were wilful default in the payment of rent and un- authorised subletting. Both the authorities below held that the revision petitioners had committed wilful default. However, as regards subletting they rejected the case of the owner.

(2.) ONE Andalammal who was the owner of the property filed the eviction petition on the following allegations: The first revision petitioner became a tenant under her agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.120, that he paid an advance of Rs.7,750, that the arrangement was that he should pay Rs.60 and the balance Rs.60 was to be adjusted in the advance paid. However he committed default in the payment of Rs.60 from 1.5.1977 till 31.10.1980 for a period of 42 months, that there were arrears in a sum of Rs.2,520, that the default was wilful and that he was liable to be evicted. As regards subletting, her case was that the first revision petitioner (R3 and R4 are the L.Rs. of Rl) had without her consent sublet the property to the second revision petitioner, that this was contrary to the arrangement between her and the first revision petitioner, that she caused a notice to be issued on 23.2.1980. that they sent a reply containing false particulars and that the petitioners were liable to be evicted. Both the revision petitioners were tenants, that the advance of Rs. 7,750 was paid by both of them, that it was not true to say that they committed default much less from 1.5.1977, that this was not true particularly having regard to the length of time in respect of which default had been alleged, that the revision. petitioners had paid the rent upto July, 1980, that the rent for August, 1980 was sent to her, that she refused to receive it, that thereafter, the revision petitioners called upon her to notify the bank where the rent could be deposited, that for the period August 1980 to November 1980 Rs.240 as rent had been paid that in December 1980 also rent had been paid, that there were no arrears, that there was no subletting, that only she had custody of the agreement, that the agreement specifically recited to who the tenants were and that the eviction petition had been filed with ulterior motive to get enhanced rent.

(3.) PER contra, Mrs.P.Bagyalakshmi learned counsel for the second respondent who has been impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased Andalammal submitted that the contention put forward on behalf of the revision petitioners was not put forward by them before the Authorities below, that the revision petitioners had committed default even after the filing of the revision petition, that they had deliberately impleaded persons who had no right in the property as L.Rs. or successors in interest of the deceased Andalammal to contest the C.R.P., that no indulgence whatsoever should be shown to the revision petitioners. She further submitted that the authorities below have concurrently, as a question of fact, found that the tenants have committed wilful default in the payment of rent and there cannot be interference under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act. In support of her contentions she relied on the following decisions (i) Sankaran Pillai (Dead) by Lrs. v. V.P.Venuguduswami and others, 1999 (III) CTC 5:1999 (6) SCC 395; (ii) N.S.M.Ahmad Jam alia Beevi v. D.N. Shan, 1997 (II) CTC 412 : 1997 (6) SCC 597 (iii) Mudigonda Chandra Mouli Sastry v. Bhimanepalli Binshalu and others, 1999 (7) SCC 66; (iv)Mohd.Basheer Ahmed v. Hakeem Noorulla Sheriff, 1997 (10) SCC 766; (v) Mayila v. Muthupalaniappan, 1999 (3) MLJ 127