Another non-residential premises is being used by landlord for running his business.

This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.7.1987 made in R.C.A.No.10 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, though reversing the fair and decretal order dated 15.12.1992 made in R.C.O.P.No.215 of 1986 by the Rent Controller and Additional District Munsif, Madurai.

2. The landlord has filed the rent control original application before the Rent Controller against his tenant for eviction of the premises bearing door No.60 of South Avani Moola Street, Madurai Town, under Secs.10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on averments that the said premises belongs to him under a Will dated 9.2.1951, that since being a minor the property was looked after by his father Kanagavel; that the respondent became the tenant of the premises for running his lorry booking office on terms that he would pay a monthly rent of Rs.200 being the premises on lease for non-residential purposes without subletting the same to any other person and on paying an advance amount of Rs.1,500 thus, the respondent enjoying the property as a lessee for the last 9 years; that the petitioner having attained majority, took over the management of the properties, including the petition premises that having prepared an agreement for the said lease, the petitioner/landlord sent the same to be considered by the respondent/tenant and to be signed, but the same had not been sent back duly signed by him, that the respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.607 of 1985 seeking permission to deposit the rents in the court and agreeing to receive the rent upto December, 1985, the petitioner required the respondent to remit the rents direct, from the month of January, 1986 and the same was compelled with by money order.

3. The further case of the petitioner as pleaded in the petition is that on 13.1.1986, he replied the notice of the respondent dated 8.2.1986 attacking the Will, under which the petitioner got the ownership of the property that the petitioner sent a second notice dated 11.3.1986, for which a reply dated 17.3.1986 had been sent by the respondent; that the respondent had denied, as per his replies, the ownership of the premises by the petitioner. Further more, the petitioner is badly in need of the petition premises since he wants to start a factory for manufacturing pencils towards which he has taken all the necessary steps. On these two grounds, and further branding the petitioner to be a chronic wilful defaulter in payment of rent, but having emphasis only on two grounds, (i) for starting an industry himself in the premises, and (ii) seeking eviction on the denial of the title of the landlord to the premises and further pleading that the tenancy got terminated with the end of March, 1986, and therefore, the respondent also become liable to pay damages for the use and occupation of the property thus, would ultimately pray to evict the respondent and hand over vacant possession of the premises within a time fixed by the court, and for costs.

4. In the counter filed, the respondent besides denying all the allegations of the petitioner would specifically state that he never disputed the title of the petitioner that he took the property on lease for godown and office purposes, that he was regularly paying the rent without any default that the agent of the petitioner used to collect the rent, that he did not turn up to collect the rents for the months of May, June and July, 1985, as a result of which the respondent sent Rs.2,100 towards rent by demand draft, which had been returned by the petitioner's father that he filed an application in R.C.O.P.No.607 of 1985 for depositing the rent into the court on refusal by the landlord thereby further denying all the other allegations in the petition, ultimately praying to dismiss the petition as vexatious and false since there is obviously no merit in the petitio