RAMALINGAM PILLAI DIED Vs. MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is preferred by the tenants in rent control proceedings, aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE respondents herein as landlords filed R.C.O. No. 1 of 1985, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Perambulur, for eviction of one Ramalingam Pillai and one Nagarajan, respectively father and son, on the grounds that the premises in their occupation was required for their own use and occupation, and that the said Ramalingam Pillai has unauthorisedly sub-let the premises in favour of Nagarajan.

(3.) IT is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords that in the petition for eviction, there is no averment to the effect that the son of the first respondent herein does not own any non-residential premises of his own to enable the landlords to invoke S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. In the evidence also, the first respondent's son, as P.W. 1 has merely stated that he has no other place and he has no other shop except the suit shop. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the absence of any necessary pleading, the order of eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act cannot be sustained. Assuming that the first respondent's son as P.W. 1 has said something in the evidence, that will not help him in the absence of any pleading. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prasad 1981 3 S.C.C. 103 and also two decisions of this court in A.N. Shanmuga Sundaram Mudaliar and 4 others v. A.P. Mani 1992 T.L.N.J. 110 and Yousuff Sait & Sons v. A. Shafeed Ahmea 100 L.W. 278. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords, however, submitted that though there is no pleading, in as much as the son of the first respondent herein as P.W. 1 has stated that he does not own any other premises of his own and that the demised premises was required for his use, it must be taken that the requirement of S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is satisfied. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions:? Kewal Singh v. Smt. Lalwani 1980 1 S.C.C. 290 v. V. Raliah 1989-1-L.W. 123.