A. GANESAN Vs. AMARAVATHIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition has been filed by the tenant, who is an advocate at Wallaja, against the eviction order granted by the appellate Court in C.M.A. No. 77 of 1979 reversing the dismissal of the eviction petition in H.R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ranipet.

(2.) THE landlady, who is the respondent herein, filed the eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, on the ground of personal occupation. The petitioner was opposed by the petitioner herein stating that the petition is motivated since the prior proceedings initiated by the landlady for evicting the tenant proved futile. The learned Rent Controller, on the evidence before him gave the finding that the requirement of premises for personal occupation is not true and bonafide. Accordingly to the revision petitioner, the grounds on which the eviction petition was dismissed are cogent and convicting. But on appeal by the landlady the order of the Rent Controller was reversed and appellate authority came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlady is true and bonafide. Hence this revision.

(3.) AS already observed the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the requirement for personal occupation is true and bonafide. It is not disputed at the time when the landlady instituted proceedings in 1973 under Exhibit B-1 and in 1975 under Exhibit B-2 the husband of the landlady was alive and that she become a widow thereafter. For coming to the conclusion that the requirement for personal occupation is true and bonafide, the appellate authority took into consideration the occupation of the building by the landlady at Vellore as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 17.50 the intention of the landlady to shift from Vellore, which is a big municipal town, to Wallajah, which is small town, wherein the schedule building is situate, and the education of the five children of the landlady at Wallajah. It is seen from the order of the Rent Controller that the previous proceedings under Exhibits B-1 to B-3 have weighed much whereas they have not weighed so much on the mind of the appellate authority.