Landlords are entitled to evict tenants for wilful default in payment of rent and unauthorized sub-letting of a portion of the demised premises.

1. Landlords who failed before the Authorities below, have filed the Revision Petition before this Court, challenging the legality of the orders of the Authorities below, invoking the powers under Sec.

25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960).

2. Material averments that are required for disposal of this Revision Petition may be stated as follows:—

Petitioners are man and wife, and the schedule property belong to them. It is their case that the first respondent herein is a tenant under the petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- payable on the first of every month according to English Calendar. It is stated that the first respondent is a chronic defaulter in paying rent, and only after lawyers notice dated 24.11.1988, a reply was sent by him stating that he was arranging to send the rent. Again he defaulted in paying the rent from May 1989 t o December, 1989 (eight months), amounting to Rs. 8,000/-. It is said that in spite of notice, no payment was made by first respondent towards rent. He is, therefore, a wilful defaulter. It is further said that the second respondent is a sub-leassee who is occupying a portion of the premises in question. Notices were sent to both the respondents and were acknowledged by them. In para 8 of the petition, a specific averment has, been made which reads thus:—

“The tenant is only the first respondent although he describes himself as partner of Keerthi Warehousing Corporation”. For the above reasons, eviction petition was filed.”

3. In the counter statement of the first respondent, it is said that there is a lease agreement dt. 21.3.1985, which is executed between petitioners and one G. Sureshkumar, for the purpose of business of Messrs. Keerthi Warehousing Corporation. At that time, the rent was Rs. 800/-. Under the said agreement, Rs. 10,000/- was received as advance. It is further said that the petition schedule building is occupied by the business concern Messrs. Keerthi Warehousing Corporation and the petitioners are also aware of the same. After retirement of Sureshkumar from the partnership, petitioners were informed about the same, and they were requested to transfer the advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the name of the firm, namely, Keerthi Warehousing Corporation. In his letter dt. 1.6.1987 also, such a request was made by first respondent. Petitioners have not made any attempt to execute any fresh rental agreement. It is said that it is only Keerthi Warehousing Corporation that has been remitting the rent from July, 1988 and, therefore, it is the firm that is the tenant, and not the first respondent alone. The allegation that he is a chronic defaulter is also denied. In paragraph 3 of the Counter Affidavit, it is said that on account of the change in the constitution of the firm and certain other routine business matters, rent from May, 1989 could not be paid. The same was brought to the notice of the petitioners, and they agreed to receive the same after some time. When there was such an understanding the petitioners have no right to file the petition for eviction. It was further said that the second respondent is associated with 1st respondent as a consultant in their business, and it has not been given exclusive possession. He is not a tenant and, therefore, there is no question of any sub-lease. It was further explained that tenancy entered into by the petitioners with Sureshkumar was on behalf of the partnership and therefore, without impleading the partnership, petition is not maintainable. It is said that the claim of the petitioners is lacking in good faith. Second respondent has been impleaded unnecessarily. They are not entitled to any relief.

4. An additional counter-affidavit was filed by first respondent alleging that the Rent Control has no jurisdiction, since on the date of petition, five years had not expired after construction of the building. Therefore, it was exempted from the purview of the Act.

5. Parties went