SOWKATH ALI Vs. PAPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirappalli, in R.C.A.No.9 of 1988 confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli, in R.C.O.P.No.190 of 1981. The landlords are the revision petitioners before this Court.

(2.) THE petition for eviction was filed by the revision petitioners, herein on the ground of wilful default and owner'srequirement. On both the grounds, the authorities below rejected the claim of the landlords and hence the present revision petition.

(3.) WITH reference to the owners" occupation the ground on which the landlord had required the premises is that sons of the petitioner were studying in a village at Kulathur and that therefore, he required the premises for shifting his children to Tiruchirapalli for better education. In this context, both the Courts below have concurrently found that after the filing of the eviction petition, the adjacent property of the same description fell vacant and the said property had been let out for lease on higher rent. It is true that the said property fell vacant only subsequent to the filing of the petition and that the choice of the premises is no doubt within the discretion of the landlord. But considering that all the houses are of the same description and situate adjacently, if the landlord had really required the premises for shifting his family, he could have made use of the premises which fell vacant subsequently. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding relating to the owner'soccupation also.