P GNANASAMBANDAM Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He filed the petition before the Rent Controller under Section 10 (2) (i), and (iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Apart from the grounds of nuisance and willful default, the petitioner alleged that he wanted to celebrate the marriage of his two sons, aged 28 and 26 respectively, that the portion in his occupation consisting of one room and one kitchen, was not sufficient for the use and occupation of his family and that he bona fide required the portion in the occupation of the respondent for his own use and additional accommodation. The respondent contended that he never committed any nuisance and that the allegation as if there was default in the payment of rent was not bona fide. He further contended that the petitioner was in the habit of evicting tenants for the purpose of letting portions in their occupation for higher rents and that there were no bona fides in the case of requirement of additional accommodation for owner's occupation. The respondent also contended that the two rooms in the front portion were with the petitioner under his lock and key. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that there was no willful default and that the requirement of additional accommodation was not bona fide. On appeal, the appellate authority (IV Judge, court of Small Causes), dismissed the appeal holding that there was no willful default and there was no bona fide in the prayer for additional accommodation. Aggrieved by the decision of the authorities below, the landlord has come to this court in revision.

(2.) THIRU M. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that both the sons of the petitioner-landlord are married now and to that effect the petitioner has filed an affidavit in revision. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner's family consists of his wife, four sons, two daughters-in-law and a grand-child. The learned counsel also relied upon various decisions in order to substantiate his case and also stressed the point that the subsequent events can be taken note of by the court to enable the petitioner to have additional accommodation, asked for by him.

(3.) THIRU M. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, cited the decision in abdul Kareem v. C. M. Mohamed, 1962-1 Mad LJ 382. That arose out of a case of owner's occupation, and not of additional accommodation. No doubt, in that decision, Ramachandra Iyer, O. C. J. (as he then was) observed that the observation of the authority below in that case that there was no satisfactory explanation as to whether the accommodation that he was to get in the rented premises was sufficient for him or not, was a wholly immaterial consideration.