MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. SAKTHI SHANMUGAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the tenant/ respondent in r. C. O. P. No. 12 of 1991 on the file of Rent Controllercum District Munsif, dindigul. THE landlord filed that application under Secs. 10 (3) (a) (i) and 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. THE landlord alleged that recently he has retired from Government service. He has no other house except the petition house in Dindigul. He is now put up in a rented building in Namakkal. He requires the building for his residence at dindigul. Even while he was in service he had written letters to the tenant seeking the house for his accommodation after retirement. THE landlord also claimed that the building was constructed 100 years ago and since it is in dilapidated condition, he wants the same for demolition and reconstruction. THE trial court allowed his application only on the first ground. THE appeal preferred by the tenant in R. C. A. No. 22 of 1992 was also dismissed by the appellate authority. Now the tenant has come forward with this civil revision petition against the said orders.

(2.) BOTH the courts below have found that the landlord has no other building in Dindigul. There is no dispute that at the time of application he was residing in Namakkal. Learned counsel for the revision petition submitted that the courts below have gone wrong in holding that the landlord is put up in a rented building in Namakkal. Ex. P-16 is the notice given by the landlord to the tenant on 13. 2. 1989 through his counsel stating about his requirement of the house. In this he has specified that he is residing only in a rented building in Namakkal. This claim has not been repudiated by the revision petitioner in his reply Ex. P-17 dated 25. 2. 1989. Besides, the tenant has stated in his evidence that only from the landlord he came to know that the letter was having his own house in Namakkal. Excepting this verbal version of the tenant, there is no other material to hold that the landlord is having a house in Namakkal. In any event, the landlord is the native of Dindigul. Only because he was in service, he was away from the town all along. Now it is open to him to settle in Dindigul and seek vacation of his house for the purpose of his residence. It is not for the tenant to oppose the same on the ground that the landlord has his own house in Namakakal and he can as well settle there. Further, we find from Ex. P-10 that even in 1980 the landlord has informed the tenant that he was requiring the building for his own use. The trial court also observes that Exs. P-1 to P-15 the correspodnence between the landlord and tenant from 1968 to 1989 indicate that continuously the landlord has been pressing the tenant to vacate the house for his own occupation after his retirement. While so, it is evident that the courts below have rightly found in favour of the landlord.