BENGAL TRADING CO Vs. G M NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the tenant in the rent control proceedings. The first respondent landlord who is now no more filed an application under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called the ?Act?) seeking eviction of the petitioner herein from the suit premises. That application was resisted inter alias that in as much as the landlord was in possession of a portion of the building, an application under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act will not lie and if at all, only an application under S. 10(3)(c)(iii) of the Act alone will lie. Both the Authorities below based on the law then holding the field held that the application under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was maintainable and on merits, found that the requirement of the building for own occupation was Bona fide and consequently, ordered eviction.

(2.) NOW, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty 1 disapproving a decision of this Court reported in Thintpathy v. Kanta Rao 2 has taken the view that if the landlord is in occupation of the portion of the building, then only an application under S. 10(3)(c) of the Act will be the proper remedy for getting eviction of any tenant in the occupation of other portion. On that basis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the finding of the Authorities below that the application was maintainable cannot be sustained.