GORI DEVI Vs. SHAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision petition filed by the landlord under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the judgment, dated 30th November, 1981, of the learned Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) in H.R.A. No. 1586 of 1980 on his file, which was preferred by the tenants against the order of the learned Rent Control (XI Judge, Court of Small Cause, Madras), in H.R.C. No. 298 of 1980, of which was filed for eviction of the tenants by the landlord-revision petitioner under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The case of the revision petitioner was as under : She is the owner of the entire premises bearing Door No. 12, Krishnappa Maistry Street, Park Town, Madras. It is a residential building comprised of two shops in the front portion of the ground floor, and the rest, residential portions. The first respondent to the eviction petition viz, A.T. Electricals, by its proprietor, is a tenant under the petitioner for the entire first floor on a rent of Rs. 130/- per mensem. The second respondent Shama Rao is a tenant in respect of a portion on the backside of the groundfloor on a monthly Rent of Rs. 70 and the third respondent Shirivasa Rao is tenant is respect of a portion in the backside of the groundfloor on a monthly Rent of Rs. 40. The first respondent the proprietor of A.T. Electricals, is occupying the premises for his residential purpos and is residing with his family in that portion, but the receipts for the rent payments are being issued in the name of the firm A.T. Electricals. The petitioner is living at No. 40 N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras, a rented building and she is not in occupation of any other building of her own in the City of Madras. She therefore bonafide requires the premises for her own occupation from the respondents. The petitioner issued a notice on 7th December, 1979, terminating the tenancy. The first respondent did not send any reply, though he acknowledged it, but respondents 2 and 3 sent replies on 12th December, 1979 and 11th December, 1979, respectively. On the basis of the above averments, the revision petitioner prayed for the eviction of the respondent-tenants.

(2.) THE first respondent in his counter, admitted the tenancy, by contended the tenancy was for commercial purpose and the vendor of the petitioner was aware that the premises were predominantly used for commercial purposes and subletting had been permitted in writing and even the sub-tenant has been using the place both for residential and non-residential purposes and as such the petitioner is not entitled to ask for eviction of a non-residential portion for a residential purpose and therefore the petition for eviction is not sustainable as filed under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The first respondent further contended that the land was already in possession of a portion of the premises on the groundfloor even at the time of the purchase and that she cannot maintain the petition as is now filed, but she ought to have filed it for additional accommodation.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller framed the following four points for consideration : -