T ANANDAN Vs. NOORJAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner. The petition for eviction was filed under Secs.l0(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. Ultimately, the only one ground that arises for consideration in this revision is the eviction sought for under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

(2.) THE respondent here in is the owner of the entire premises at No.7, Thayar Sahib Road, Mount Road, Madras -2 and the petitioner herein is the tenant under the landlady is respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.200. According to the landlady, though the petition premises was let out to the tenant for the purpose of his residence, the tenant is using the same for non -residential purpose. According to the landlady, the tenant installed in the petition premises a commercial banking even deliberately and thereby caused damage to the ceiling of the building. The landlady is residing at premises No.34, Veerasami Pillai Street, Egmore, Madras -8, which is a rented premises. The landlady is also carrying on a business under the name and style of Asian Enterprices in the 2nd Floor of premise old No.200/210, Triplicane High Road and present D.No.75, Quide Millath Salai, Madras -5 on a monthly rent of Rs.650. She vacated the said premises and is now carrying on the said business at No.36, Veerasami Street, Madias - 8. Therefore, the landlady requires the petition premises in the occupation of the tenant bona fide for her own use and occupation. The landlady further states that she is not having any other non -residential premises of her own in the City of Madras. Hence the petition.

(3.) ONE Abdul Basith Khan was examined as P.W.1 and the tenant examined himself as P.W.1. The landlady filed 57 documents, the tenant filed 12 documents. Considering the facts and circumstances in this case, the learned Rent Controller held that the requirement of the landlady is bona fide under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and accordingly eviction was ordered. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenant.