A tenant must establish timely rent payments to avoid eviction; separate attornment of tenancy is unnecessary upon property transfer.

ORDER :

This civil revision petition is filed as against the order dated 29.11.2018 in R.C.A.No.3 of 2015 on the file of Subordinate Court, Vaniyambadi, reversing the fair and decretal order dated 16.09.2014 in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi.

2. The present revision arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973.

3. The petitioner is the landlady, aggrieved by the reversal finding rendered by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No. 3 of 2015 on the file of Subordinate Court, Vaniyambadi setting aside the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No.91 of 1995 dated 16.09.2014.

4. I have heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the revision petitioner / landlady and Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the records, including the impugned order and judgement of the authorities below.

5. The brief facts leading to the present civil revision petition are as follows;

The landlady filed R.C.O.P.No.91 of 1995 before the learned Rent Controller, Vaniyambadi seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default, denial of title and own use and occupation. The case of the landlady was that originally, the petition premises belongs to one Mohammed Yahia Basha Saheeb under whom the respondent was inducted as a tenant ,on a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. The said Mohammed Yahia Basha Saheeb sold the petition premises to one Kavitha in and by a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1995. It is the specific case of the petitioner/landlady that the tenant, respondent herein was informed about the said sale and was called upon to pay the agreed rent from 01.03.1995 to the purchaser, Kavitha. The respondent did not heed to the said request which constrained the purchaser, Kavitha to initiate eviction proceedings on the ground of willful default, denial of title and own occupation. Pending the said rent control petition, the said Kavitha sold the petition property to one Devan on 29.10.2001 and subsequent to his purchase, the said Devan executed a settlement deed in favour of the revision petitioner/ landlady herein on 02.02.2005. The petitioner filed I.A.No.08 of 2006 for substituting herself in the place of the petitioner/ landlord and the same was allowed.

6. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that he has been a tenant right from 1987 onwards under Mohammed Yahia Basha Saheeb. He also stated that he had filed a suit in O.S.No.1017 of 1995 for injunction which is pending. The respondent also disputed the title of Kavitha and consequently the title of the petitioner herein.

7. The learned Rent Controller, on considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, held that there is no necessity for attornment of tenancy and the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rents and proceeded to order eviction. The respondent herein preferred R.C.A.No. 3 of 2015 before the Appellate Authority. The appellate authority reversed the findings of the rent controller, holding that Kavitha has not authorised the petitioner to receive rents and further the suit filed by the tenant for specific performance had also been allowed and on these grounds, the eviction petition was dismissed.

8. Aggrieved by the reversal findings of the Appellate Authority, denying eviction to the petitioner, the present civil revision has been preferred.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ landlady would submit that even in the evidence, the tenant had clearly admitted that he has not paid rents ever since 1995 and in fact, though a feeble attempt had been made stating that rents were pai