I have put up superstructure and a portion was let out to the second respondent herein.
For all these reasons companyduct of the appellant should be companystrued to be bonafide.
The respondent filed the eviction petition against him, on the grounds that he is defaulter, number paid the rents from October 1982 to May 1983, the said premises is required for demolition and reconstruction and that he has sub let a portion of the disputed premises.
The appellant also relied on facts which came into existence, during the pendency of the said revision that in fact the said Devasthanam filed a suit on 30th October, 1987 against the appellant and others, claiming paramount title over the land including disputed one and also for eviction before the City Civil Court, Madras.
The main companytention raised before the High Court is also the same as raised before us that the companyrts below have failed to appreciate on the facts and circumstances of this case that denial of title by the appellant is bona fide and hence number payment of rent cannot be held to be wilful.
In the revision, against the order passed by the executing companyrt, the High Court held that merely because the paramount title holder filed a suit, the arrangement between the appellant and the respondent cannot companye to an end, hence claim of the appellant was rejected.
The said averment made by the respondent in para 3 of the petition under Section 14 1 b read with Section 10 2 i and 10 2 a of the Act, is quoted hereunder The petitioner states that she is the absolute owner of the premises house and ground bearing municipal door No.
On the other hand aforesaid revision of the appellant was dismissed for default by the High Court on 27th April, 1989.
1 since 1980.
D E R These appeals are directed against the order of the High Court of Madras dated 24.11.1997 in Civil Revision Petition Nos.
Even in Ex.
The Rent Controller rejected this defence and held that the appellant companymitted default in the payment of rent, the premises in question is legitimately required by the respondent for demolition and reconstruction.
The Appellate Authority companyfirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller and held, there exists relation of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the appellant and the denial of title by the appellant is number bonafide and the default of payment of rent is wilful.
Thus the executing companyrt on 24th September, 1987 rejected the appellants companytention.
The appellant aggrieved by these dismissal orders of the High Court in the two revisions, which upheld the companycurrent findings recorded by both the authority below has filed the present appeals.
Respondent denied this claim on merit and further objected of this being companysidered in the execution proceedings.
830 of 1997, as aforesaid, before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Further he submits the said affidavit of the respondent in the Devesthanam suit where he admits to be lessee, number owner, is companytrary to what he has stated in the present petition under Section 14 1 b of the Act where he assert himself to be the owner.
Meanwhile, the respondent filed execution petition before the Rent Controller.
18 of 1960 , hereinafter referred to as the Act.
These appeals arise under the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 Tamil Nadu Act No.
The appellant in this execution also referred to the suit of the Devasthanam, and submitted rent was rightly paid to the temple and number to this respondent thus this execution has become inexecutable.
It was urged the executing companyrt cannot go beyond the decree.
The appellants stand is that earlier he was under an impression that the respondent is the owner of the premises but later he came to know that Arulmigu Athikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam is the owner of the premises.
The said Arulmighu Audikesavaperumal Peyalwar Devasthanam sent a reply to the 1st respondent on 4.5.83, which is marked as Ex.
However, the Rent Controller rejected the case of sub letting, which for the present appeal is number in issue as it has become final.
Finally, the appellant filed civil revision before the High Court.
R.3 in this petition.
The main companytention by the learned senior companynsel for the appellant, Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, is that the companyrts below have neither applied its mind to the facts of this case number recorded any finding that the denial of title by the appellant was number bonafide.
It also companyfirmed that the building is required by the respondent for demolition and reconstruction.
3476 of 1985 and 830 of 1997 dismissing these revisions.
The appellant thereafter preferred Civil Revision Petition No.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for restoration.
Consequently, held that number payment of rent to the respondent was wilful.
The appellant then filed an appeal.
The application of the appellant for restoration of the revision was allowed.
The short facts are that the appellant is a tenant of the disputed premises, who was running an automobile workshop.
Further, Devasthanam had number even informed the appellant that they are the owner.
So he wrote a letter to the said Devasthanam to recognise the appellant as a tenant.
Reliance is sought to be placed on the reply affidavit of the appellant in the said suit, where it is said he has admitted to be the tenant of the Devasthanam.
Since then and for this reason the appellant did number pay any rent to the respondent bonafide believing the Devasthanam to be the owner.
R.3, the said Devathanam had number examined any right and title over the petition premises and the said devasthanam had number even admitted their ownership over the petition premises.
108, Pilliar Koil Street, Alwarpet, Madras 600018.
There is numbercase or any evidence that since thereafter Respondent No.
The submission is that he denied the title of the respondent in favour of temple on the basis of information received from the Temple which is also born out by the subsequent event, leading to filing of the suit by the Devasthanam, thus his paying rent to the temple companystitute to be bonafide one.
