JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The landlords are the revision petitioners.
(2.)The landlords filed a petition under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1991 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Chidambaram, for the eviction of the tenant and the said petition was dismissed. The landlords, thereafter, have preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.8 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Chidambaram, and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the landlords have preferred this civil revision petition.
(3.)The landlords in their petition have stated that the respondent is a tenant in respect of the petition premises, which was leased out for non-residential purpose and the rent was Rs.400/- per month. It is also stated that the tenant has been irregular in payment of rent and as on 30.4.1989, he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,200/- as arrears of rent, which he has not paid and therefore, the default on the part of the tenant is willful. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner gave a notice on 26.5.1989 demanding the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and also to vacate the petition premises and the respondent, having received the notice, did not comply with the same. It is further stated that the tenant had sent demand drafts between 1.8.1989 and 12.10.1989 amounting to Rs.2,530/- leaving the balance as arrears of rent and thereafter also, he failed to pay the rent and hence, the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,270/- for the period ending 30.11.1990 after deducting the amounts sent by him through the demand drafts. It is further stated in the petition that the tenant had taken the petition premises for running a photo studio and contrary to the same, he is running a xerox copy shop and a colour lab also and thereby, he put the premises to a different user contrary to the terms of lease and therefore, he is liable to be evicted.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.