R.V.P. SHAKUNTHALA Vs. N. HARI NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the tenant. She is aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of additional accommodation. The first respondent herein as the landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 762 of 2006 on the file of Small Causes Court, Chennai against the petitioner herein seeking for her eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The case of the landlord is that the petition mentioned property belongs to him in pursuant to a family partition. The petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of the ground floor of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- The landlord and his wife were having multiple ailments due to their old age. Consequently, they were advised to avoid climbing steps. Apart from the said fact, his daughter also needs a separate room for her studies.

(2.) The said application was resisted by the tenant. It was her contention that the landlord was having three other portions in the ground floor and the same were kept idle for several years without occupation. He could have occupied the said portions, if there was really a need. It was also denied by the tenant that the landlord was maintaining a library.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord has established the need of the premises and also the relative hardship whereas the tenant did not establish so. The learned Rent Controller has taken into consideration Ex. P1 letter to hold that the relative hardship is more on the landlord.