MOINUDDIN KHAN SAHIB Vs. RUKMANI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has preferred this revision petition against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the first appellate authority on the ground that the respondent bona fide required the premises for her own occupation.

(2.) THE respondent requires the premises for residential purposes. It is found that the premises consist of two rooms, one occupied by the petitioner for residential purpose and the other for rolling beedies. The Rent Controller has found that the house was predominantly let out for residential purpose. But the first appellate authority has found that it was let out partly for residential and partly for beedi rolling purposes.

(3.) IN view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Dakshinamurthi v. Thulji Bai, (FB)) it has been held that where the court finds the letting to be equally for residential and non-residential purposes and not mainly or substantially for the one or the other kind of purpose, the application by the landlord may well stand whether filed under Section 7 (3) (a) (I) or Section 7 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent is legally entitled to claim the premises in question which has been let out partly for residential and partly for non-residential purposes for her own occupation.