PARAMESWARI BRICK WORKS Vs. P.S. SIVARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round of rent control proceedings which started 12 years ago. The revision petitioner is the tenant The respondent is the landlord who sought to evict the petitioner from the petitioner mentioned property on two grounds, i.e. the respondent requires the premises for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction and he requires the building for additional accommodation. It need not be said that the ground of additional accommodation comes under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent) Act, 1980. The petitioner resisted me petition but both the authorities concurrently found that the premises is not required for immediate demolition and re -construction but with regard to the requirement of additional accommodation both the authorities below have held that such a requirement is bona fide. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. This was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in C.R.P. No.1292 of 1984. Maheswaran, J. by order dated 5.11.1986, following the principles laid down in State of Tamil Nadu v. : [1981]2SCR742 events have to be taken note of allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for examining the question whether the need of the respondent for additional accommodation still exist in view of the subsequent events. After remand the appellate authority sent back the matter to the Rent Controller by order dated 27.10.1989 for going into the question with regard to the subsequent events. Now both the authorities have held that the respondent landlord requires the building concerned for additional accommodation and it is bona fide. Against that order the petitioner is before this Court once again.

(2.) MR . V.P. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that after the remand, both the authorities below have erred in not accepting the plea of the petitioner that the premises is not needed for additional accommodation for the landlord/respondent, since the landlord has let out two other premises after he filed the petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Learned Counsel further contends that in view of the proviso to Sub -clause (e) of Section 10(3) of the Act there is no finding with regard to the hardship which will be caused to the tenant and as such the order is vitiated on that ground. Learned Counsel relied upon a decision of Rama Prasada Rao. J. as he then was, which is reported in Loganatha Naiker v. Balasundaram Mudaliar, (1974) II M.L.J. 256 and a judgment reported in Navamani Nadar v. Rangaswami Achari and offers, 1977, T.L.N.J. 544 rendered by S. Natarajan J. as he then was. All these decisions relate to a proposition that a finding should be given by the authorities with reference to the relative hardship before order of eviction is passed under Section 10(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Learned Counsel also refers to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court under the previous Act which considered in pari materia the provisions which is reported in Mohammed Jaffar v. Palaniappa Chettiar 1964 I M.L.J. 112.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel further points out that the petitioner has not raised this ground before the Appellate Authority in the first round or before this Court in the earlier occasion. It is now seen that this ground is not taken even in the grounds of revisions even before me and even in the order which has been passed after remand this point has not been well taken by the petitioner.