R. NARASIMHACHARI Vs. KANAKASABAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of the proceedings before the House Rent Controller (District Munsif, Mannargudi). The petitioner is the landlord. He filed a petition for the eviction under Section 7(3)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The suit property originally belonged to one Santhana Ramayyar and his brothers. The respondent was their tenant from 9th June, 1956. The allegation in the petition was that the house was given originally for residential purpose, and that subsequently the respondent is using the front portion for his printing press and residing in the rear portion of the building the tenant was put on notice by the original owner, Santhana Ramayyar, that he is liable to be evicted, as he is using the building for a different purpose. Subsequently Santhana Ramayyar sold the property to the petitioner herein on 20th May, 1958 and the tenant attorned to the petitioner, subsequently there was a partition between the petitioner's father and his brother on 1st January, 1959. Next day, the petitioner and his father effected a partition in and by which the property purchased by the petitioner was allotted to him. Now the petitioner filed the petition for eviction on the ground that he required the building for his residential purpose and also for his business which he is carrying on at Nidamangalam and Coimbatore 6 of 1961.

(2.) THE respondent contended that this application is not a bona fide one. The petitioner's father himself made a complaint to the local District authorities that the petitioner was committing nuisance by installing the printing press in the building. After purchasing the building in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner's father effected partition allotting the building to the petitioner in order to apply for eviction of the respondent. The petitioner is a bachelor and residing with his father. The petition is not maintainable.

(3.) THE only ground that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the application is a bona fide one and whether the petitioner requires the building for his own use and necessity.