R V DHARMALINGA MUDALIAR Vs. K ANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only contention urged in this civil revision petition at the in-e stance of the tenant is that the application filed by the respondent herein under S. 10(3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for an order of eviction against the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the first floor in premises No. 76 T. K. Mudali St. Choolai, Madras 7 on a monthly rent of Rs. 85. Admittedly, the respondent is the landlord of the premises. According to the case of the respondent, his first wife's son, who is working as an Executive Engineer in the Corporation of Madras, requested the respondent to provide him with a portion in order to set up his family separately and that in May 1976, when the second floor portion fell vacant, the respondent made it available to his son. Alleging that the second floor portion has asbestos roofing, which makes the premises very hol, during day time, that the roofing had also developed leakage and that there is no water facility available for the family of his son, his wife and two children, the respondent filed an application under S. 10(3)(c) of the Act, for an order of eviction against the petitioner herein in respect of the first floor under his occupation after terminating the tenancy by notice.

(2.) The petitioner resisted the application by contending that the petition is not maintainable and that the application for eviction had been filed on account of the refusal of the petitioner to accede to a demand for higher rent by the respondent. The application for eviction, was also characterised as mala fide.

(3.) On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the teamed Rent Controller held that, the application for eviction filed by the respondent herein is not maintainable and that it is also not bona fide. On this conclusion, the application was dismissed Aggrieved by this, the respondent preferred an appeal in H.R.A. No. 1279 of 1979 to the appellate authority -(7th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, The appellate authority held that the petition for eviction is maintainable and that the application is also bona fide and genuine. The question of relative hardship was also considered by the appellate authority and it was found that greater hardship would be caused to the son of the respondent by not making the additional accommodation available to him than the hardship that the petitioner would be put to as a result of the passing of the order of eviction. On these conclusions, the dismissal of the application for eviction was set aside and an order of eviction was passed.