LAWS(MAD)-1973-3-52

P.A. ARUMUGHAM Vs. NATIONAL PALAYAKOT COMPANY

Decided On March 23, 1973
P.A. ARUMUGHAM Appellant
V/S
National Palayakot Company Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner. He filed the eviction petition against the respondent -tenant under Section 10(3)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960. In that petition, the landlord has averred that his family has grown, that one of his daughters has since been married and another daughter and son also have to be married shortly, that on account of the growth of the family as well as increase in the number of visitors and guests owing to the alliance etc., he finds that the present accommodation in the first floor is very inadequate to meet his needs, that he is put to such inconvenience and hardship for want of sufficient accommodation that the rear portion of the first floor in the occupation of another tenant, being small and inconvenient, is not sufficient to meet the needs of the petitioner and that the landlord requires the ground -floor portion in the occupation of the respondent -tenant for bona fide additional accommodation.

(2.) THE respondent -tenant contended that there are no bona fides in the prayer of the landlord, that the portion in the occupation of the respondent is a non -residential one and as such it cannot be claimed for residential purposes, that the rear portion in the first -floor has since fallen vacant and as such the landlord can take possession of the same which will accommodate a big family, that the accommodation available for the petitioner in the first -floor is more than sufficient for his convenient enjoyment, that the respondent is carrying on business for a number of years and has set up a good will in the locality, that the respondent cannot get any alternative accommodation in the same locality and that in any event the hardship that will be caused to the respondent in directing his eviction will really outweigh the convenience petitioner might enjoy in that event.

(3.) THE Sixth Judge, Court of Small Causes who is the Rent Controller, allowed the eviction petition and ordered the eviction of the respondent herein. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction, holding that there are no bona fides in the petitioner's claim for additional accommodation and that the hardship that would be caused to the respondent would outweigh the convenience that would accrue to the landlord in case of eviction.