C ARAVINDAN Vs. D KATHIRVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. THE respondent landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.35 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ambattur for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation. That application was dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondent landlord in R.C.A.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authoritty-cum- Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee was allowed and against that this revision is filed by the revision petitioner tenant.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted thatadmittedly the tenanted property consist of two portions and the revision petitioner is occupying the eastern portion. Originally the western portion was in the occupation of brother's son of the respondent landlord and he vacated the premises long back and that portion has not been occupied by anybody. He further submitted that in the petition it has been stated that the respondent landlord was working in HVF at Avadi and he was residing at Shevapet and he found it difficult to come to his factory at Avadi and for that purpose he required the premises for his own occupation. But when the matter was taken up for trial, the respondent landlord retired. THErefore, there was no necessity for him to come and settle at Ambattur to attend his work and admittedly the respondent landlord is having a house at Shevapet and he has not stated in the chief examination that he required the premises for his own occupation and therefore in the absence of pleadings and evidence to that effect, the appellate Court erred in ordering eviction without properly appreciating the findings rendered by the learned Rent Controller. He further submitted that the specific case of the respondent landlord was that he was not well and therefore he was not in a position to attend his work from Shevapet and no attempt was made by him to prove his illness during trial and only during appeal he filed some medical certificates and it was relied upon by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority for ordering eviction and admittedly that document namely Ex.P2 was of the year 2005-2006 and the petition was filed in 2001 and therefore the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ought not to have relied upon Ex.P2 to allow the appeal. He also relied upon the Judgement reported in 2007 (3) CTC, 59 ( T.TamilarasanVs. Arokkiasamy and others) in support of his contention. He also relied upon the Judgement reported in 1999 (6) SCC, 222 ( Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr.Mahesh Chand Gupta) and Para 14 of that Judgement and contended that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Judgement, admittedly, the western portion of the same building is available for occupation and that was not occupied by the respondent landlord and therefore as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above adverse inference can be drawn and without considering the same, the learned Rent Control appellate Authority has ordered eviction. He further submitted that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ought not to have relied upon Exs.P2 and P3 for ordering eviction.

(3.) ACCORDING to me, the above Judgement cannot be applied to the facts of the case. In this case, in the same premises one portion is in the occupation of the revision petitioner and another portion is vacant whereas in the reported Judgement the landlord had alternative accommodation other than the accommodation occupied by the tenant and in that circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the landlord had alternative accommodation he has to say why he has selected the particular tenanted premises under the occupation of the tenant for his own occupation. Further, it has been held in the same Judgement that the alternative accommodation must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. As stated supra, in the same premises one portion is in the occupation of the tenant and another portion was let out for the brother's son of the respondent landlord and after he vacates the premises that portion is kept vacant. ACCORDING to me, that fact would only prove that the landlord bona fidely requires the entire premises for his accommodation and if the portion occupied by his brother's son was sufficient for him he would have occupied that portion immediately after his retirement. The landlord having realized that he required the premises in entirety for the occupation of himself and his family consisting of his wife and children applied for own occupation and in my opinion, the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and it cannot be considered as a mala fide requirement.