KATHAN Vs. SCAW MANAK CHAND SHOHAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner. R. C. O. P. No. 172 of 1993 was filed by petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default, change of user and for his own occupation. R. C. O. P. No. 252 of 1996 was filed by the respondent for deposit of rent. THE Rent Controller rejected the ground of wilful default as also change of user, but ordered eviction on the ground of own occupation. R. C. O. P. No. 252 of 1996 was also dismissed. Against the orders, three appeals were filed, R. C. A. Nos. 99, 100 of 1997 and 38 of 1998. THE tenant filed R. C. A. Nos. 99 and 100 of 1997 against the order of eviction passed on the grounds of owners occupation and the refusal to permit deposit of rent. THE landlord has filed R. C. A. No. 38 of 1998 against the rejection of the grounds of change of user and wilful default. THE Appellate Authority dismissed the landlords appeal and also the tenants appeal under Section 8 (5) of the Act. R. C. A. No. 99 of 1997 was allowed thereby dismissing the order of eviction. THE present revision petition s C. R. P. Nos. 3009 to 3011 of 1999 are filed against all these orders. THE only petition that was argued was C. R. P. No. 3010 of 1999 against R. C. A. No. 99 of 1997. No arguments were advanced against the concurrent finding regarding change of user and wilful default.

(2.) THE landlords case is that he is married and since he is staying with his father he would like to live separately and requires the place for his own use. THE tenant resisted this on the ground that the petitioner has many houses in Madurai and that even now the petitioner is staying in his own house and therefore, there is lack of bona fides in the petition.

(3.) IN his original petition the petitioner has stated that, he is now living with his father and since he is married he wants to live separately. IN the counter it is stated that the petitioner is staying in his own building and that the suit premises was let out by the petitioners father and the rent is also paid only to the petitioners father. IN the evidence the petitioner had stated that, IN cross-examination he has stated, IN continuation of cross-examination, he has again said,