A. RAJU Vs. T.S. KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the sides. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

(2.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the landlord preferred the appeal; whereupon the Appellate Court confirmed the order of eviction on the grounds of wilful default, owner's occupation and act of waste and rejected the claim for eviction on other two grounds, viz. differential user and non-occupation of the demised premises. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of eviction passed, the tenant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition on various grounds.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would pyramid his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: There is no default in payment of the rent much less wilful default. Even before filing of RCOP, the entire arrears due and payable were sent by demand draft and it was received. In such a case, there is no question of default in payment of rent would arise. The prayer of the respondent herein, viz. Krishnamurthy for eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal occupation of one Suryanarayanan, the respondent's brother's son, is something not contemplated in law. Over and above that, the said Suryanarayanan for whose benefit Krishnamurthy, the petitioner in RCOP sought for eviction of the tenants, is admittedly occupying a building which belongs to the same family. The family of Krishnamurthy as well as Suryanarayanan are owning 30 to 40 buildings admittedly in the same town and in such a case, the question of seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal occupation is something not contemplated. The definition "member of his family" as contemplated under Section 2(6-A) of the Act does not encompass the brother's son of the landlord. There is no wastage caused by the tenant as he constructed only a bath room and septic tank, because as on the date of taking on lease the premises, there was only a dry latrine, wherefore such bath room and septic tank were constructed. He did not effect any partition of the hall, but already there was a door-less threshold inside the house and the tenants simply provided door to it for the purpose of achieving certain privacy of the female members of the house. As such, he would pray for setting aside the order of the appellate Court and for dismissing the RCOP by allowing this revision.