KR SATHAPPAN Vs. AR RENGANAYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2008 in R.C.A.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority at Devakottai, whereby and whereunder, the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 20.03.2008 in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Controller, Karaikudi was reversed and a decree of eviction was passed against the petitioners.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are relevant to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition, are recapitulated as under: (a) THE property described in the schedule to the Rent Control Original Petition absolutely belongs to the respondent. THE property was given on lease to the first petitioner for residential purpose on 17.10.1993 subject to condition of payment of a sum of Rs.120/- per month as rent. THE rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs.200/- during the year 1997. (i) According to the landlord, the first petitioner was irregular in the matter of payment of rent. He has been using the building for non-residential purposes, inasmuch as he was storing the edible oils and other essential ration commodities in the subject premises. (ii) THE husband of the respondent was taking treatment for his kidney problem and he requires further treatment. THErefore, the subject building was required for the bona fide use of the husband of the respondent as well as her family members for their convenient residence. THErefore, the respondent/landlord filed an application for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(v) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, praying for an order to evict the petitioners on account of their willful default, different user, act of nuisance and bona fide need. (b) THE eviction petition was resisted by the revision petitioners and in the counter filed in answer to the contentions raised in the Rent Control Original Petition, they would contend thus: (i) the first petitioner was discharging the rent very promptly. THE rent happened to be in arrears only after filing a suit by the second petitioner against the respondent/landlord in O.S.No.353 of 2004. (ii) He has been using the premises only for residential purpose. THEre was no act of nuisance caused at his instance. THE landlord has no bona fide need and it was only a ruse for eviction. (iii) THE very eviction proceeding initiated was only on account of the suit filed by the second revision petitioner in O.S.No.353 of 2004 for injunction against the landlord. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller also opined that neither there was act of nuisance nor different user of the building by the first petitioner. THE claim regarding bona fide need was also rejected, as according to the learned Rent Controller, there were no materials to show that the respondent requires the building for her bona fide purpose. In short, the learned Rent Controller rejected all the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the Rent Control Original Petition was dismissed, as per order dated 20.03.2008.