Appeals were preferred before the Appellate Authority against both the orders directing eviction and dismissing applications for deposit of rent.
The Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence led before it by the parties, held that all the three grounds were proved by the appellant and allowed the eviction petitions by order dated April 09, 1992 however, the petitions filed by them for deposit of rent were dismissed.
It was also submitted that the transfer of the premises in favour of the appellant was number known to them and that they were paying the rents regularly to him and that there was numberwilful and malafide denial of title of the appellant.
But it held that as the applications filed by them for deposit of rent before the Rent Controller were without any valid reasons, they companymitted wilful default in payment of rent.
While so, the appellant filed three eviction petitions under Sections 10 2 and 14 1 b of the Act against them seeking their eviction from the premises on three grounds, namely, i wilful default in payment of rent ii for demolition and reconstruction of the premises and iii denial of the title of the landlord.
They replied that he was only a company owner as the original landlord Chockalingam died leaving behind three daughters and a widow also, therefore, he companyld number seek eviction for demolition and reconstruction of the premises.
On the allegation that the appellant was number receiving rent, the respondents issued numberices to him to numberinate a bank and furnish account number to which the rent may be credited but numberreply was given by him.
In that view of the matter, the Appellate Authority dismissed all the appeals filed by them on September 27, 1992.
They resisted those petitions pleading that the quantum of rent claimed by the appellant was number companyrect the agreed rent for the Shops bearing Door Nos.19, 20 and 21 was Rs.75/ , Rs.250/ and Rs.200/ respectively and reiterating the plea taken in the reply numberice that he is a companyowner and cannot seek eviction of the premises for demolition and reconstruction.
The landlord claimed that the rent of the shops, Door Nos.19, 20 and 21, was enhanced to Rs.400/ , Rs.850/ and Rs.700/ respectively.
They are said to be in occupation for the last 25 to 40 years.
On the point of denial of the title, the order of the Rent Controller was companyfirmed.
However, the Appellate Authority was number satisfied that the landlord required the premises for demolition and reconstruction and on that point the finding of the Rent Controller was reversed.
The companymon appellant is the landlord and respondents are the tenants of the three shops, Door Nos.19, 20 and 21, R.K.V.Road, Erode, hereinafter referred to as the premises .
The Appellate Authority found that the quantum of rent pleaded by them was companyrect and that the appellant failed to establish that the rent was enhanced to the amounts claimed by him.
Thereafter, they filed applications under Section 8 5 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease Rent Control Act, 1960 for short the Act seeking permission of the Rent Controller to deposit the rent in his Court.
By a companymon order dated November 17, 1997, the High Court allowed the revision petitions and set aside the order of eviction passed against them.
He issued numberice to the said three tenants stating that the premises were required for demolition and reconstruction and asking them to vacate the same.
The facts giving rise to these appeals may be numbericed here.
Dissatisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority, the respondents filed three revision petitions before the High Court of Madras.
J U D G M E N T SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J. Thesethree appeals, by special leave, arise out of the companymon judgment of the High Court of Madras in C.R.Ps.3796 to 3798 of 1994 dated November 17, 1997.
The father of the appellant, Late Chockalingam who was the owner, let out the shops on rent bearing Door No.19 to T. Subramaniam Rs.75/ per month Door No.20 Rs.250/ per month to M. Sengottaiyan who died during the pendency of the proceedings his legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 2 to 6 , and Door No.21 to Nachimuthu Rs.200/ per month.
On June 8, 1978 the said Chockalingam executed release deed Exhibit P 4 in favour of the appellant and thus he became the absolute owner and landlord of the premises.
