K. RAJEEVAN Vs. K. R. KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2020 made in R.C.A.No.86 of 2016 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court at Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2015 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1125 of 2013 on the file of the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein/landlord has filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.1125 of 2013 for own use and occupation on the ground that the respondent therein is a tenant and using the petition premises as non-residential purpose and paying the monthly rent of Rs.4,900/-. The respondent/landlord was in need of the petition premises for doing business of his son, who is already running his business in a rental premises for monthly rent of Rs.12,000/-. After issuing legal notice, the respondent herein/landlord has filed the R.C.O.P. for eviction of the revision petitioner herein/tenant. The bonafideness of the requirement of the petition premises by the landlord is disputed by the tenant in the counter affidavit. The learned Rent Controller / XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, has accepted the case of the tenant and dismissed the R.C.O.P. As against the order of dismissal passed by the learned Rent Controller, the landlord has filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.86 of 2016. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, after reconsidering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, allowed the said appeal. As against the said order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would contend that the relevant hardship caused to the tenant was not considered by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and hence, the learned counsel prayed for restoration of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller.