N S SIVAPRAKASAM Vs. M MUNUSWAMY NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. THE respondent-landlord filed the petition, H.R.C. No. 1504 of 1979 for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of requirement for additional accommodation. THE tenant in turn filed H.R.C. No. 2410 of 1979 against the landlord for restoration of the amenity, namely water supply. Both the petitions were tried together and the Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is true and bona fide and therefore, ordered eviction. THE other petition by the tenant for restoration of the amenity was also allowed since, in the meanwhile, the landlord himself restored the water supply. THE tenant filed an appeal against the order of eviction and the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller with reference to the requirement for additional accommodation of the landlord. THE tenant has now come on revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the order of the Appellate Authority. So far as the requirement for additional accommodation is concerned, the tenant has no arguable case. According to the landlord, the premises in the occupation of the tenant is required by him for accommodating his son who is in military service and who has been transferred to Madras. The landlord as well as his son gave evidence as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and have proved that they are in occupation of just one room, kitchen, verandah, etc., and therefore, they require additional accommodation. It is noticed from the evidence that there are nine members in the family. It is not disputed that the landlord.s son, who was serving elsewhere till the, filing of the petition for eviction has been transferred to Madras and he is living with his father. Both the Courts below rightly found that the requirement is true and bona fide. Of course, the question of relative hardship has not been considered by the, Appellate Authority, but that position is not seriously argued. The tenant is paying a rent of Rs. 40 per mensem and it is a portion of the residential premises situated at Door No. 76, Veeraperurnal Mudali Street, Myla-port, Madras-4. It is nobody.s case that an alternative accommodation cannot be secured by the tenant. The hardship that would be caused to the landlord in the event of the dismissal of the petition for eviction will far outweigh the advantages that may accrue to the tenant. Conversely, the advantage to the tenant does not outweigh the advantages caused to the landlord. Therefore, the order of eviction has to be confirmed on merits.

(3.) THE matter can also be looked at from another angle. THE landlord herein is the chief-tenant under the temple and he cannot have a better right than the owner of the property. THErefore, so long as the property, namely the building is exempted, the Rent Control Act will not apply. For this proposition, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant also drew my attention to the ruling reported in K. Balakrishna Rao v. Haji Abdulla1.