Eviction petition can be filed by any co-trustees of the trust.

This civil revision petition is filed by Kamuthi Madalaichamy alias Sivanendal Perumalsamy Koil Private Trust by its Trustee S. Ponnusamy Nadar against the judgment in R.C.A. No.2 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif (Rent Controller), Paramakudi made in H.R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1980 directing eviction of the respondent herein. Eviction petition was filed by the petitioner herein on three grounds; (1) under S.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for wilful default in payment of rent at Rs. 80/- per month from November, 1978 up to July, 1980(2) under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Act for wilful denial of title of the landlord and (3) under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, requirement for demolition and reconstruction.

2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the status of the petitioner that he is the landlord of the petition premises, that he paid the rent to another trustees. Ponnusam Nadar for the said period and that the petitioner does not require the premises for demolition and reconstruction bona fide.

3. The trial Court appointed an advocate commissioner to find out the nature of the building and to submit a report and plan. The learned advocate Commissioner filed his report and plan under Exs. C.1 and C.2 respectively.

4. The trial Court accepting the contention of the petitioner ordered eviction granting two months time to the respondent for vacating the premises. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent herein filed R.C.A. No.2 of 1983 before the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) who framed three points for consideration (1) whether the tenancy in favour of the respondent by the petitioner is true; (2) whether the respondent has willfully failed to pay the rent and (3) whether the petitioner requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction bona fide? The lower appellate authority found point No.1 in favour of the petitioner, to wit, that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner. With regard to the period of wilful default, the lower appellate Court found that the respondent has paid the rent to another trustee C. Ponnusami Nador on behalf of the trust under Exs.B.3 to B.5 and also that the respondent has deposited the rent into the trial Court on the application I.A.29/83 filed in the trial Court for disposit of arrears of rent and so that there is no wilful default. The respondent has executed a lease deed in favour of another trustee C. Ponnusami Nadar under Ex.B.2 dated 17-9-82 with regard to petition premises. With regard to the plea of bona fide demolition and reconstruction, the lower appellate authority found this point against the petitioner herein. Therefore, the learned appellate authority reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the petition for eviction.

5. The aggrieved petitioner contended before me that having found that the relationship of landlord and tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent exists the lower appellate authority ought to have ordered eviction of the respondent. Then with regard to the wilful default, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the payment of rent to another trustee C. Ponnusami Nadar would not be payment of rent to the petitioner herein when once the respondent was inducted into possession by the petitioner herein after executing Ex. A.1 lease deed. Ex. A.1 lease deed was executed by the respondent in favour of Kamuthi Nadalaichamy alias Sivanendal Perumalsamy, Koil Private Trust represented by C. Ponnusami Nadar. Ex. B.2 lease deed was executed by the respondent in favour of C. Ponnusami Nadar, one of the trustees of the trust. Both the lease deeds were obtained by the individual trustees representing the trust. Therefore, this trust which is the landlord is represented by different trustees under Ex. A.1 and Ex. B.2. Learned counsel for