CHELLAPPAN Vs. SAROJINI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions are filed by tenants who challenge the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of additional accommodation under sub-section (8) of Section 11. CR. 133/04 corresponds to RCP. 53/96 is in respect of two rooms in the ground floor of a two storied tiled building belonging to the landlady who is residing in the building portion situated on the back side of the above two storied tiled building. The revision petitioner in RCR. 133/04 is conducting Bakery business in rooms in his possession. RCR. 132/04 corresponds to RCP. 52/96 is in respect of another room in the ground floor of the two storied tiled building adjacent to the rooms which are subject matter of RCP. 53/96. The revision petitioner in RCR. 132/04 is conducting tailoring business in that room. For the two rooms possessed by him, the revision petitioner in RCR. 133/04 is paying a consolidated monthly rent of Rs. 500/- which was re-fixed at that rate in the year 1995. The revision petitioner in RCR. 132/04 is paying monthly rent of Rs. 300/- which was also re-fixed to that rate in the year 1995.

(2.) The original landlady sought to evict the revision petitioners on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b); bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11 (3); user of the building in such a manner as to reduce utility of the building materially and permanently under Section 11 (4)(ii) and also additional accommodation for personal use under Section 11(8). The Rent Control Petition was dismissed completely by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment has ordered eviction only on the ground under Section 11(8) and hence, the other grounds do not survive for consideration.

(3.) Therefore, in these revisions filed by the tenants we need be concerned only with the legality, regularity or propriety of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(8). The need projected by the landlady was that she wants to conduct textile business with the assistance of daughter and son-in-law in the petition schedule rooms situated on the front side of the building portion where she is residing along with the daughter and son-in-law. The bona fides of the need for additional accommodation was disputed. The tenants contended that the advantage which the landlady may gain by getting eviction will not outweigh the hardships which will have to be suffered by the tenants if they are ordered to be evicted.