PETER D SOUZA Vs. RENT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was the original respondent. The respondent No. 3 was the original applicant No. 2. Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 are the legal heirs of the original applicant no.l Mrs. Raquel Dias.

(2.) The original applicants filed an application for eviction against the original respondent, the petitioner herein, for eviction on two grounds, namely non-payment of rent and change of user of the premises from commercial to residential. It was the case of the original applicants that the original respondent had failed to pay the rent due from July, 1978 inspire of a number of requests to pay the sane. The original applicants had entered into a Deed of Lease with the original respondent i.e. the petitioner herein dated 18th July, 1968, whereby one room ad measuring 15 sq. mts. was demised to the petitioner for use of the same as a tailoring shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The original applicants alleged that they had sent to the petitioner a notice on 10th June, 1973 by registered post A/D to pay the arrears of rent within 30 days from the receipt of the same. It is alleged that the notice was returned unserved by the postal authorities and thereafter on 20th June the original applicants addressed another notice to the petitioner by registered post A/D on the sane lines. This notice was returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement that the original respondent had left the country. Thereafter on 8th July, 1978, the original applicants through heir advocate addressed a notice to the wife of the petitioner conveying to her the gist of the notices earlier addressed to her husband and calling upon her to furnish her husband's address. It is alleged that though the wife of the petitioner received the notice she did not furnish the address. On the other hand, the arrears continued to remain unpaid and accumulated every month; that a reply thereafter was sent by the wife of the petitioner on 19th July, 1978.

(3.) On notice being served the petitioner herein contested the proceedings by filing his written statement. It was the contention of the petitioner that in fact that premises demised admeasure 27.25 sq. mts. and consisted of one room of the aforesaid area which was connected with the front and rear varendahs and also attached to the near verandah and on room for storing firewood and a bathroom. It was the case of the petitioner that these premises with the facilities were leased to the petitioner for the purpose of carrying a tailoring business-cum-residence and that the measurement of 15 sq. mts. was incorrect The petitioner denied that he failed to pay the rent from July 1973. In the written statement the petitioner has stated that a notice dated 14th July, 1973 was sent to him by the original applicants and a reply was sent by the petitioner to the original applicants by registered letter A/D dated 27th July, 1973. The petitioner further alleged that the said room tint leased for carrying on tailoring business-cum-residence since the execution of the lease. The petitioner alleged in para 6 that he did not owe any money to the original applicants and, on the contrary, the original applicants were bound to pay to the petitioner Rs. 2763.50p., being the amount spent on repaires to the house after obtaining due approval from authorities concerned. The respondent/petitioner also alleged that the original applicants did not pay the house tax which she was bound to pay and that the demand was made on him. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire amount was paid by him and that half it has to be reimbursed to him by the original applicants.