RAJ KUMARI Vs. N.V. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been preferred by the landlord against the order of the appellate authority (Sub Court), Nagapattinam, in R.C.A. No. 7 of 1985 reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Nannilam, in R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1984 and dismissing that application filed by the petitioner praying for an order of eviction against the respondent herein under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner, the premises in the occupation of the respondent was purchased from one Sabeeya Bivi on 7.11.1983 and the petitioners under the care and protection of the grandfather and grandmother, who are living in a rented premises in 20-H, Kochipalayam Street, Ohai, Kodavasal, and that the premises is bonafide requirement for the occupation of the petitioner. It addition, the petitioner also stated that the respondent had committed wilful default in the payment of rents from 7.11.1983 till February, 84 to the tune of Rs. 168/-. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner prayed for an order of eviction against respondent. The application was resisted by the respondent herein on the ground that the petitioner was living in her own house in Chai and that the requirement is not bonafide. The further case of the respondent was that the rents upto December, 1983 had been paid to the vendor of the petitioner and that the rent for January, 1984 was sent, after the receipt of notice, by Money Order and that was returned and the default in the payment of rent cannot, therefore, be considered to be wilful. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Rent Controller found that the petitioner had established her bonafide requirement of the premises in the occupation of the respondent under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and that the respondent has also committed wilful default in the payment of rents. On the conclusions so arrived at, an order of eviction was passed against the respondent. Aggrieved by this, the respondent preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 7 of 1985 before the Appellate Authority. That authority, however, found that the requirement of the petitioner was not bonafide and that the respondent has not committed wilful default. In view of the conclusions so arrived at, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the application for eviction was also dismissed.

(3.) IN regard, however, to the requirement under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act, the appellate authority had clearly fallen into an error. When it is not in dispute that the parents of the petitioner are both employed, it is natural that during their absence the petitioner has to be looked after by some others. From Exts. P.3 to P.8, it is seen that the grandparents of the petitioner are living in a rented premises being door No. 20-H, Ohai Middle Street. That premise had not been established to belong to the petitioner. From Ex. P-7, in particular, it is clearly seen that the premises in the occupation of the parents of the petitioner is a rented one. The appellate authority took the view that the petitioner was aged only 3 years at the time of the eviction petition and he was not in a position to appreciate what was good or bad for her and therefore, the requirement cannot be characterised to be bonafide. However, it is not possible to either accept or even appreciate that reason given by the appellate authority. When it is not in dispute that the parents of the petitioner are both employed, it becomes necessary that somebody has to take care of the petitioner during their absence and in this case, it is only the grandparents, who have been looking after the petitioner and they are, admittedly, living in a rented premises. There is nothing wrong in the petitioner desiring to have her own premises; where she can be looked after by the grandparents during the time when the parents are away at work instead of a rented premises as of now. A faint attempt was made to argue that the object of the eviction petitioner was only to evict the respondent with a view to let out the premises for higher rent to others. There is absolutely no evidence whatever in support of this plea. The evidence also does not suggest that the application for eviction was neither motivated or had been filed with an oblique purpose. Under those circumstances, the requirement of the petitioner under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act should be held to have been made out, on the facts and circumstances of this case.