SUKHRAJ BAROLA Vs. D PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 21.04.2004 made in R.C.A. No.147 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, reversing the order and decretal order, dated 22.12.1999 passed in R.C.O.P. No.2808 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Controller/XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) THE Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No.2808 of 1995 was filed by the Respondents herein under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control ) Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as -Act-), seeking an order to evict the Petitioner/Tenant from the Petition premises. After the trial, the learned Rent Controller, dismissed the R.C.O.P. without costs. Aggrieved by which, the Respondents herein preferred Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A. No.147 of 2000. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 21.04.2004, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, reversed the Judgment of the Trial Court, whereby allowed the R.C.O.P., seeking eviction of the Petitioner/Tenant. Aggrieved by which, the Revision has been preferred by the Petitioner/Tenant.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. P.B. Balaji, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Landlords submitted that there is a clear finding by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, based on evidence to evict the Petitioner/Tenant under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Respondents drew the attention of this Court to the fair order passed in the R.C.O.P. available at page number 15 of the typed set, wherein the learned Rent Controller has held that the Respondents 2 and 3 herein are in need of the petition premises for their additional accommodation, however, merely considering the oral evidence of the Petitioner/Tenant, it was found by the Trial Court, that the residence and the place of business of the Petitioner/Tenant are in the same area and on that ground, the learned Rent Controller held that if the Petitioner/Tenant is ordered to be evicted from the petition premises, that would cause more relative hardship to the Petitioner/defendant, than the Respondents/Landlords, without considering the real hardship of the Respondents/Landlords.