V R SHAH Vs. N VISALAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are filed by the tenants who are aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority reversing the order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority had directed the eviction on the ground that the landlady.s married daughter and son are required to be provided with separate residence as contemplated under section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Con-trol) Act while the Rent Controller was of the view that the evidence of P. W. 1 could not be accepted. How the matter was approached by the appellate authority was admittedly the married daughter and the son of the landlady were living along with the landlady and the family itself consisting of 14 members and therefore this is a case in which the bona fides had been fully made out. In seeking to revise this order what is contended by Mr. Udairaj Gulecha, learned counsel for the petitioner, is as follows: It is the duty of the landlady to enter into the box and depose to the bona fide requirement of the married daughter or the son as the case may be. Since she has failed to do so in view of the rulings reported in Sivaprakasam and others v. K.M. Sheriff1 and in Nanalal Goverdhandas & Company v. Smt. Samarathai Lilachand Shah2, which was followed in Chinta Narayanamma v. Kholli Sahu and others3, the petitions ought to have been dismissed. Further it is argued that the rent control petitions themselves are vague because it is not stated anywhere in those petitions that the married daughter or the son are living with the landlady (mother) and the appellate authority had made a wrong statement in this regard. Lastly it is contended that the approach of the appellate authority itself is wrong. THESE are points raised before me. THESE points are countered by the learned counsel for the respondent stating that it is not necessary that the landlady herself has to enter into the witness box and depose evidence, as through P. W. 1 it was elicited that Kanchanamala and Ramasundaram for whose requirement the rent control petitions were filed since they are living with the landlady the mother (Visalakshi). The law does not require that the landlady herself must enter into box and depose evidence. The case reported in Sivaprakasam and others v. K.M. Sheriff1, was a case wherein there was no evidence by the concerned person nor was there any other evidence Therefore it cannot be held that the landlady who filed the rent control petitions must herself enter into the box. If all the requirements of section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act are tested in the light of section 10 (3) (e) that will be enough to grant the relief. The contention that the approach by the appellate authority is wrong is untenable.

(2.) A subsidiary argument was raised at a belated stage that one of the portions which had fallen vacant was occupied by Kanchanamala. Therefore, the subsequent event can be taken note of as per the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Hasmant Rai and another v. Raghunath4. But this is countered by filing an affidavit stating that the said portion was vacated only for Savithri Balakrishnan and she has occupied the same and therefore Kanchanamala is residing with the landlady. Hence no subsequent event will be taken note of. Accepting the counter-affidavit I see nothing warrants taking note of the subsequent event. Therefore, I proceed to deal with the merits of the case. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is stated as follows: . "Petitioner states that the respondent is a tenant under her in respect of the upstair portion of premises No. 28, Ramachandra Iyer Street, T. Nagar, Madras 600 017 on a monthly rent of Rs. 350 payable according to English calendar month. Petitioner states that she requires the entire upstair portion in the occupation of the respondent for her own occupation to provide accommodation to her daughter Kanchanamala Thyagarajan who has no residential building of her own in the city of Madras." In paragraph 7 of the counter-statement it is stated as follows: "The petitioner (tenant) submits that in the instant case the petitioner and other members of her family are admittedly owning more than one house namely the petition premises, besides the petitioner.s dwelling house namely No.1, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T. Nagar, Madras-17, is also owned by the member of her family and therefore the present petition filed by the petitioner is in contravention of the terms of section 10 (3) (a) (i) of Act XVIII of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973.., The learned appellate authority starts his judgment stating .