DR. N. NATESAN Vs. MRS. S. SANTHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the unsuccessful landlord whose petition for eviction of the respondent Under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) from premises No. 8 Abhiramapuram First Street, Madras -18 on the ground that he bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation and also for the use of his son, had been dismissed. The application for eviction filed by the petitioner was contested by the respondent on the ground that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and that, in any event, her two daughters who are living with her having been employed in essential service an eviction order cannot be passed in view of the protection given Under Section 10(4) of the Act. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner's requirement of the premises for the occupation of himself and his son is bona fide. But he found that the petitioner is not entitled to an order of eviction on the ground that the respondent's daughters are employed in essential service and as such an order of eviction could not be passed in view of Section 10(4)(i) of the Act. There was an appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority also held that the petitioner's requirement of the premises for his own occupation was bona fide. It, however, held that the respondent is entitled t o the benefit of Section 10(4)(i) of the Act in view of the fact that her daughters are employed in essential service. The petitioner is questioning the correctness of the finding of the Courts below that he is not entitled to an order of eviction in view of Section to (4) of the Act.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below were in error in holding that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Section 10(4)(i) of the Act so as to prevent the petitioner from getting an order of eviction on the ground of his bona fide requirement of the premises.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the protection Under Section 10(4)(i) will be available only to the tenant and not to any other member of his family and that the view of the Courts below that the definition of "tenant" Under Section 2(8) will take in the sons and daughters as well cannot be held to be a tenable.