P MAHENDRAN Vs. S JOTHILAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed in RCA.No.9 of 2009 and the fair and executable order passed in M.P.No.567 of 2009 dated 02.08.2010 in directing the eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground of requirement of premises under additional accommodation.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the petitioner / landlady before the Rent Controller are as follows:- THE petitioner purchased the petition premises from one Tmt.Vijaya Govindarajan on 09.02.2007 under registered sale deed along with the adjacent portion. THE respondent was tenant under the erstwhile owner on a monthly rent of Rs.950/- excluding consumption charges for residential purpose. THE petitioner and her vendor informed the respondent to vacate the petition premises on or before 31.01.2007. THE respondent stated that he could vacate only in May 2007. He assured that he would pay monthly rent to the petitioner from the date of sale deed and would also vacate by end of May 2007. Thus, the respondent attorned tenancy orally to the petitioner. However, the respondent failed to pay monthly rent from 09.02.2007 to the petitioner in spite of repeated demands and notice dated 06.07.2007. Hence respondent committed default from 09.02.2007 to 08.07.2007 amounting to Rs.4,750/-. Further, the petitioner is living in the small portion adjacent to the petition premises which is insufficient for her family. THE petitioner's son requires separate room for studying. THE petitioner's hardship is more than the hardship of the respondent, if eviction is not ordered. Further the respondent is having three dogs and they are barking loudly during night hours and disturbing other occupiers of the building and the neighbours and thereby causing nuisance. THE respondent has not complied with the demands of legal notice dated 06.07.2007 and has not even replied. Hence, this petition.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller examined the landlady as PW.1 and two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and had admitted Exs.P1 to P3 on the side of the landlady. THE learned Rent Controller had also examined the respondent / tenant and yet another witness as RW.1 and RW.2 and had admitted Exs.R1 to R11 on the side of the respondent. After the perusal of the evidence adduced on either side, the learned Rent Controller was convinced the requirement of the premises on the ground of additional accommodation, but rejected the grounds of wilful default and nuisance and thereby ordered eviction of the tenant from the demises premises.