SEKHARAN Vs. GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second revision is by the petitioner, landlord, whose petition for eviction from his residential house, of a tenant, under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, has been dismissed concurrently by all the courts below.

(2.) The petitioner was, at date of the petition and for some time previously, residing in his tarwad house along with his brothers and sisters and their children. According to the petitioner, he found it very inconvenient to continue like that and so he required his own building, for his residential purposes. And petitioner also moved into rented quarters by the time the petition came on for trial. The respondent tenant in his objections, questioned the bona fides of the petitioners claim and asserted that the building in question was too small and did not befit the petitioners status. During the trial, petitioner admitted that the building he sought surrender of, was unfit for his occupation as it stood and had to be reconstructed if it was to answer his residential needs. Based on this admission practically it was, that the three courts below right up to the District Judge, in first revision came to the conclusion that petitioner had not made out a bona fide claim for eviction and so rejected his petition. The first two courts, viz., the Rent Controller, Kozhikode and the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar, relied also on their finding that the hardship caused to the tenant would far outweigh the advantages that might accrue to the landlord on the eviction for arriving at their conclusion.

(3.) Learned counsel for the landlord petitioner, urges before me that the courts below had misled themselves in thinking, that a landlord cannot seek surrender of his own building for purpose of reconstruction and subsequent residence. He complains also that subordinate authorities had wrongly introduced the question of comparative hardship to the tenant and their order was to that extent clearly bad.