S LOGANATHAN Vs. HUSSAIN BI ALIAS FATHIMAUNNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent/ Tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 31.10.2008 in R.C.A.No.204 of 2008 passed by the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) The Learned Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, while passing orders in R.c.A.No.204 of 2008 dated 31.10.2008, has among other things observed that '... The Respondent/Landlady required the petition premises, which is non-residential nature for parking her son's car and further she also required for non-residential purpose only. Further, there is no evidence on the side of the tenant that the requirement of the landlady lacks bonafide and resultantly, held that the Respondent/ Landlady bonafidely required the petition premises for her son's own use and occupation and thereby confirmed the order dated 10.10.2007 in R.C.O.P.No.465 of 2007 passed by the Learned Rent Controller viz., XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.'

(3.) According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, the findings of the Learned Rent Controller dated 10.10.2007 in R.C.O.P.No.465 of 2007 and the findings of the Learned Appellate Authority dated 31.10.2008 in R.C.A.No.204 of 2008 were untenable and baseless one because of the fact that the Authorities had failed to appreciate an important fact that the Rent Control Original Petition was filed for the purpose of parking of the vehicle of the Respondent/Petitioner's son in the petition premises.