Judgment: — On three grounds the petitioner filed a, rent control petition for evicting the respondent from premises No. 9111, Venkar tachala Mudali Street, Mylapore, Madras-4. The undisputed facts in this case are that originally a partnership consisting of mother and her three sons were carrying on business in the premises in question under the name and style of Messrs. Stainless Steel Emporium. The petitioner later found the sign board of M/s. Ameena Metal Stores in the said premises and, therefore, he was of the view that the original emporium vacated the premises or it has sub-let the same to Ameena Stores. With that impression gained by him on the facts discovered at site and also on. the ground that the tenant, meaning thereby the Emporium, did not send rents from June to September, 1972, the present application for eviction was filed.

2. The first respondent’s case was that the partnership, was dissolved in 1970, that one of the partners of the quondam partnership continued to remain in the premises and was trading therein but under a different style of Ameena Stores and that, therefore, there wasneither sub-letting nor a question of the tenant ceasing to occupy the premises can ever be thought of or has arisen in this case. In. so far as the non-payment of rent for June to September, 1972 was concerned, the respondent’s case was that the tenant in the sense the second respondent tendered the rent and notwithstanding the fact that the landlord was not put on notice of the dissolution of the original firm in writing and notwithstanding the absence of notice of specific induction of the second respondent as tenant, the rent, which was tendered by drafts was being so tendered or paid by the second respondent, Ameena Stores and it would not make any difference. The respondents therefore, resisted the application for eviction on the above grounds.

3. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner as landlord was entitled to an order for eviction on all the grounds. The appellate authority reversed the judgment again on all the grounds. Hence, the civil revision petition.

4. Mr. Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, repeats the contentions raised before the authorities and would say that there has teen sub-letting and that the petitioner has made out a case that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a period of more than four months as contemplated under section. 10 (2) (vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. He would also contend that by reason of Ameena Stores being inducted into the premises by the quondam partnership firm there has been sub-letting without authority within the meaning of section 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Act. He would further contend that the appellate authority, while reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, did not give a specific ruling as to whether there has been indifference or wanton failure on the part of the tenant in tendering (the rents and in any event the tender of such rents by drafts by the second respondent without disclosing his identity is by itself a suspicious circumstance and such tender of rent ought to be ignored and the petitioner given relief under section 10 (2)

5. The question is whether there is identity either in part of in whole in the cause of action when it is laid under section 10 (2) (ii) (a) and 10 (2) (vi) of the Act. Under section 10 (2) (ii) (a) a landlord is entitled to an order for eviction if there is a subletting of the building or any portion thereof without his written consent. Section 10 (2) (vi) on the other hand, speaks of a situation where the tenant has ceased to occupy a [building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. If the case of sub-letting of a part of the building is proved, then it would also pragmatically mean that the tenant has ceased to occupy that portion of the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. In his sense, where there is a partial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document