244 and 264 , both the applications were tried together and disposed of by a companymon judgment dated 15.12.1995 by the Controller.
These appeals have been filed by the tenants by special leave feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court.
It was alleged in the application for eviction filed on 6th April, 1989 that the tenants did number pay the rent of premises Door No.264 for January and February, 1989 at the rate of Rs.1,000/ per month and for premises Door No.244 for the month of February, 1989 at the rate of Rs.4,000/ per month.
Even the term of lease by Municipal Corporation in favour of the landlords had expired and the Corporation had taken steps to create a lease directly in favour of the actual occupants and the respondents had agreed to pay the rent to the Municipal Corporation w.e.f.
Barring the period of two months, there was numberoccasion for number payment of rent.
This additional companynter, far from defending the tenants, has proved to be a potent troubleshooter for the tenants and the bone of companytention in this litigation as will be numbericed shortly hereinafter.
Further, it was number properly proved as to whether the landlords had demanded the payment of arrears by issuance of numberice to the tenants.
The High Court has, by its companymon order, disposing of the four civil revision petitions, reversed the judgment of the Controller and the Appellate Authority.
In its order dated 24.12.1996, the Appellate Authority framed two points for decision, viz.
In the additional companynter, it was submitted that the tenants had reliably learnt, on making enquiries from the Municipal Corporation of Madras, that long term lease was granted by the Corporation in favour of late M.B. Ramachandra Naidu, who expired in the month of March 1982.
It was an admitted position that the taxes due and payable by the landlords were being remitted by the tenants to the Corporation on behalf of the landlords.
The landlords preferred civil revisions in the High Court.
The lease period has already elapsed.
More over you have agreed to pay the lease amount by your letter dated 26.3.93.
The landlords preferred appeals.
With his death, the lease came to an end.
Though, the landlords had filed two applications for eviction in respect of two premises i.e. Door Nos.
Thus, there are three persons associated with the suit premises the Municipal Corporation, their allottees i.e. the respondents , and further lessees inducted by the allottees i.e. the appellants.
belonging to Corporation of Chennai from 1.4.82.
The Controller found, vide para 9 of its order, that the tenants have been remitting the agreed rental amount to the landlords which factum is borne out by the accounts produced by them.
8/1737/93 Date In your letter dated 26.03.93 you have companyfirmed that you are occupying the premises No.244, Walltax Road, 4110 sq.ft.
The Appellate Authority, on the question of default in payment of rent, reiterating the circumstances found proved by the Controller, felt impressed by an admission made by the landlord PW1 in his statement that the tenants used to pay rent once in two months and that the landlord or her father used to go to the tenants firm to companylect the rent.
1 whether the respondents companymitted wilful default, and 2 whether the respondents were liable to be evicted due to their denial of appellants right over the property being number bona fide.
1.4.1982 and onwards.
For Commissioner To Surendar Kumar Chouraria, 40, Ormes Road, Kilpauk, Madras 10.
For these reasons, it was submitted that the proceedings for recovery of possession from the tenants were number maintainable.
The Appellate Authority also entertained a doubt if the tenants had at all received any numberice from the landlords demanding payment of rent.
The landlords have further leased out the premises to the tenants appellants before us .
We may hasten to add to the factual statement that sometime after the month of March 1993, one of the partners of the tenants was delivered a numberice by the Municipal Corporation which reads as under NOTICE Corporation of Chennai Land Revenue Department.
Since you are enjoying the premises belonging to Corporation of Chennai the following amount is due from you 1.4.82 to 31.3.89 prior to 1989 162.96 1989 90 35962.50 1990 91 95900.00 1991 92 113162.00 245187.46 Hence you have to pay the amount of Rs.245187.46 before 15.4.93 to the Corporation Treasury, failing which the above premises belonging to Corporation of Chennai will be auctioned to public.
In the written statement, the tenants companyfined themselves to denying their being defaulters and raising dispute as to the rate of rent and quantum of arrears.
However, a sister of one of the landlords had filed a suit in the High Court claiming a share in the suit property while the Corporation had issued numberice to the tenants demanding payment of rent.
However, an anxiety for protecting their possession over the suit premises and zeal for giving a rebuff to the landlords, impelled them to file an additional companynter in September 1993, in addition to their companynter filed by way of written statement in February 1990.
