SAROJA H S Vs. C KRISHNUMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP No. 3076/1991 is by the tenant against the partial order of eviction made by the trial Court, while CRP No. 450/1991 is by the landlady against the order denying her the benefit of the entire premises.

(2.) The landlady sought eviction of the tenant from the schedule premises on the ground that she required the schedule premises for her own use and occupation and her requirement is reasonable and bona fide; she also alleged that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of another premises of his own, which is suitable for the residence of the tenant. The landlady averred in her eviction petition that during the life time of her husband the premises was built by him raising handloans from his friends and also by borrowing from the LIC and in order to clear the loan, he had to lease the premises to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 325/-, with an understanding that the tenant should vacate the premises in five years and the lease was during the year 1974. The husband of the landlady died in January 1979. In spile of repeated requests by her, the tenant postponed the handing over of the premises. The landlady is residing in the out-house in the same compound, having only asbestos sheet as its roof and the out-house measures only about 5 squares. It has only a bedroom, a hall, kitchen, dining hall, pooja room and a toilet. It was earlier used to keep horses and is aged about 100 years. Landlady has two major sons and one daughter. The sons are employed and are of marriageable age. The daughter was in the Engineering college. The sons are having two wheelers which require space to keep them in safety. The out-house cannot be renovated; the accommodation therein is wholly insufficient. The premises in question has three bed-rooms, a verandah, a hall, a dining hall, kitchen, pooja room, a bath and a toilet. This additional accommodation in this schedule premises is claimed by the landlady. According to her, the tenant owned a house in Sultanpet, having two floors, having sufficient accommodation for the tenant, of which he acquired vacant possession after evicting his tenant under a compromise order.

(3.) The tenant denied several assertions of the landlady, and asserted that the accommodation available to her in the out-house was sufficient. The Sultanpet premises was available to the tenant even at the lime he obtained the schedule premises on lease and the said Sultanpet premises was not suitable for him; the ground floor is used by his three sons for their business in provisions and the first floor was being used for the cleaning and packing processes; he also asserted that those sons of the tenant were sleeping in the said Sultanpet building. The lenanl has 9 sons and 2 daughters, out of whom 2 sons were studying in the College situated near the schedule premises. The lenanl being a retired person and was more than 67 years of age is not in a position to pay higher rent by taking another house on lease. It is unnecessary to refer to other averments.