RAHMATH BI Vs. A AHAMED SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the petitioners herein. THE landlord filed a petition under section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and also alleged sub-letting under section 10 (2) (ii) of the Act. According to the first petitioner herein, respondents 2 and 3 are his close relations, that since she is a widow, respondents 2 and 3 are residing with her just to help her and that there is no question of any sub-letting as alleged by the landlord. THE first petitioner further contended that the landlord is in possession of three rooms in the suit building and as such the petition under section 10 (3) (a) (i) is not maintainable and if at all the landlord wants the portion under the occupation of the first petitioner herein, he should come with an application under section 10 (3) (c) of the Act. Both the Courts below have, elaborately discussed the evidence on record; and came to the conclusion that the landlord required the building bona fide for his own occupation and that the first petitioner herein had sub-let to the building to the second and third petitioner herein who are respondents 2 and 3 in the courts below Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Courts below, the tenants have preferred the above revision petition.

(2.) MR. S. M. Hameed Mohideen, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that inasmuch as the landlord is in possession of the three rooms in the suit building, the petition itself is not maintainable. As regards the sub-letting the learned counsel states that respondents 2 and 3 in the lower Courts are close relations and they are residing with the first petitioner just to help her, since she is a widow. I have carefully gone through the order of the Courts below and also the evidence on record. It is clear from the evidence let in that the landlord is not in occupation of any of the rooms in the suit buildings. According to the evidence of P. W. 1, one room in the suit building is occupied by Mumtaz Bi and other two rooms are in a dilapidated condition and they are unfit for occupation. This evidence of P. W. 1 is not at all challenged by R. W. 1 during enquiry. Thus, it is clear that R. W. 1 has not substantiated her case that P. W. 1 is in occupation of the three rooms in the suit premises. MR. Hameed Mohideen cited a decision in support of his case, which is P. M. Kuppa v. Raja Ram Sah 1 , Ramaprasada Rao, CJ. , delivering the judgment in that case wherein the landlord required the building for additional accommdation under section 10 (3) (c) of the Act, held that the portions under the lock and key of the landlord must be deemed to be in his legal possession. On this reasoning the learned Chief Justice ordered eviction under section 10 (3) (c) of the Act. I am afraid that the said decision will not be applicable to the facts of the case. There is absolutely no evidence that these three rooms were under the lock and key of the landlord herein. It is also not in evidence that the landlord is in physical possession of the said three rooms either. As I have observed already there is clear evidence to show that one room is in possession of Mumtaz Bi and other rooms are in dilapidated condition and unfit for occupation. From these facts I do not think the decision cited is applicable to the facts of this case.