P S PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. A SIMEN GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision filed under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), as amended by Act (XXIII of 1973), hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the landlord against the reversing finding of the learned Appellate Authority . Fifth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in H.R.A. No. 861 of 1979.

(2.) THE landlord has filed H.R.C. No. 2180 of 1977, tinder sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (ii) (a) and 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act, seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, subletting and bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord, for his own use and occupation. THE respondent herein is a tenant of the upstairs portion of door No. 5, C. P. Rama-swami Iyer Road, Madras-18, on a monthly rent of Rs. 251. THE landlord averred in his petition for eviction that he is not maintaining good health for the last few years and is often visiting Madras for medical treatment, that his family is also coming to Madras along with him and they have to stay in lodges or other places on rents and often it is found very difficult to get accommodation, that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation, that the respondent has sublet the premises and that he had not paid rent from February, 1975 till date and thereby committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the landlord is not in possession of any other blouse of his own in the city of Madras.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller held that the respondent-tenant has not committed wilful default in payment of rent, and that the landlord has not proved his case of subletting. But, on the ground of (requirement for) own occupation, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by that order, the tenant took the matter on appeal and the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller holding that the premises In question is only a residential premises and that the landlord has miserably failed to prove that the demised premises is required by him for his stay for the purpose of medical treatment. It is against this, the present revision is filed by the landlord.