VELLICHIRAMMAL SIVADASAN Vs. T.K. PRASANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in confirmation of the order passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under Sub -section 3 of Section 11. The case of the landlady was that she needs the building which is a residential building for occupation by her son Sachin who intends to get married soon. The bona fides of the need and the claim were resisted by the revision petitioner/tenant. It was contended by the revision petitioner that the landlady and her son/Sachin are financially very well off and that the petition schedule building which is virtually a hut is not fit enough if occupied by the landlady's son, having regard to his social and financial status. It was also contended that the landlady's son who is a computer Engineer is permanently settled down in Bombay and that in Bombay he is having his own flats. In fact, when the above submission was made before us by Sri.K.Babu, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, we enquired of him whether the revision petitioner will be able to produce documentary evidence to prove that the landlady's son owns a flat in Bombay and is permanently settled down in Bombay. The answer was in the positive and we granted time to the petitioner for production of documents. Today, we do not find any documents produced by the petitioner. But the learned Counsel for the respondent/landlady submitted that her son does not own any flat at all in Bombay and that if so ordered, he will be prepared to swear to an affidavit before this Court stating that he does not own any flat in Bombay and is willing to occupy the building once the same is got vacated.

(2.) THE counsel for the respondent further submitted that recently, the landlady's son got married and the above subsequent event should be noticed by us as a circumstance which strengthens the need which was projected in the RCP and recognized by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.

(3.) UNDER the statutory scheme, the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the final court on facts. Having scanned the judgment of that authority, we are of the view that the finding entered therein are convincing evidence. We are inclined to accept the landlady's case (as was done by the authorities below) that the landlady's son does not own any residential flat in Bombay nor is he settled down permanently in Bombay. The landlady as well as their son were examined before the Rent Control Court. That court became inspired by the oral evidence given by PW1 and PW2. We do not find any illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority in having relying on the testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 and concluded that the need projected by the landlady is a bona fide one. Sub -section 12 of Section 11, in our opinion, provides an effective remedy to the revision petitioner if the landlady's son/PW2 does not occupy the building for the purpose mentioned in the Rent Control Petition after evicting the revision petitioner.