C S PILLAI Vs. CAPT M A MURUGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner before me. He sought eviction against the respondent in respect of the first floor of the premises bearing door No. 10, 6th Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, which has been let out to the respondent for residential purpose. THE case of the landlord was that he was residing in a rented house and he wanted to occupy the petition premises for his own use and occupation and, therefore, the requirement is bona fide. A notice was issued on 1st December, 1978, Exhibit P-3 terminating the tenancy with effect from 31st December, 1978. In spite of the same, the tenant did not comply with the demand. Hence, the petition.

(2.) THE respondent in his counter raised the following contentions. It is not correct to say that the petitioner wants to stay in his own house independently. THE requirement is not bona fide. THE petitioner does not require the premises under the occupation of the respondent for his own use and occupation. THE respondent denies the allegation that the petitioner is not occupying any building of his own in the City of Madras. THE eviction application lacks bona fides because the respondent was not willing to pay higher rent as demanded by the landlord. THErefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) ON appeal, the only point that loomed large before the appellate authority was about the availability of the first floor occupied till then by one Mr. Raghavan, Director of Posts and Telegraphs Department. The appellate authority examined the evidence tendered by the revision petitioner as P.W. 2 and came to the conclusion that the ground floor was occupied by one Mr. Raghavan, Director of Telegraphs. This statement was reiterated when he was recalled and examined. However, the landlord had stated that he wanted the entire house for his own occupation. ON this, basis, though he found that there was bona fide in the need of the petitioner, in so far as the ground floor was vacant at the time of the filing of the petition, he should come forward with an application, seeking eviction of the tenant in the first floor under section 10 (3) (c) and not under section 10 (3) (a) (!) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) hereinafter referred to as the Act. In other words, the application should have been one for additional accommodation and not for bona fide requirement for residential purpose, as though the landlord was not in occupation of a residential premises or portion of his own. Accordingly, he set aside the order of eviction. It is under those circumstances, the present revision petition has come to be preferred.