M QUDRATHULLAH Vs. PATEL SHAMSUNNISSA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P. 132 of 1991 on the file of XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras is the revision Petitioner in both the petitions.

(2.) LANDLADY filed eviction petition under Section 10(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the following allegations: Scheduled premises is northern portion in first floor of the house, ground and premises bearing No. 85, Perambur Barracks Road, Vepery, Madras. Petitioner herein is the tenant of that portion of the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 604/-. According to landlady, she is living in the nothern portion in the ground floor of the premises. LANDLADY has got two daughters who are married. Husband of elder daughter Dil Shah Begum is doing business at Periamet, Madras. On her request, southern portion of first floor was allowed to be occupied by her and she is in possession of that portion. Husband of the other daughter, Shahnaz Anwar is employed as Development Officer at Hindustan Teleprinters, Guindy, Madras, and they are living in a rented building. Rented premises is very inconvenient for their occupation and they want scheduled premises for their occupation. Scheduled premises consist of four rooms and a hall and the same will be convenient for petitioner/landlady and members of her family consisting of six members. Since petitioner is living on the northern portion of ground floor consisting of two rooms and varandah, she cannot accommodate her daughter in that portion due to lack of space. Petitioner has got other married daughters and they also often visit petitioner. Petitioner's son Shahul Hameed is also to be married in the near future. Under these circumstances, landlady seeks eviction of tenant for her additional accommodation.,

(3.) EVEN though revision petitioner contended that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or to invalidate the documentary evidence, I do not think that I am justified in setting aside the Judgment only for that reason. From the progress diary, it is clear that petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and he did not avail the same. When authorities below have taken a view that the attempt of petitioner is only to drag on the proceedings and when that finding is based on materials, I do not think that I will be justified in interfering in that finding in these revisions. But that by itself is not going to conclude the matter.