RAJU Vs. A PONNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred under Sec. 25 of the tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the order dated 19thseptem-ber, 1986 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli, in R. C. A. No. l of 1985. The respondent-landlady filed the application under Secs. l0 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (i)of the Act alleging that the petitioner/ tenant has been in wilful default in the payment of rent and that the schedule premises is required for the use and occupation of her son who is an Excise Officer of the State Government. Both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have negatived the ground pleaded under Sec. 10 (2) (i) of the Act. As far as the ground pleaded under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act is concerned, both the authorities have concurrently held that the landlady bona fide requires the schedule premises for the use and occupation of her son. Accordingly, an order for eviction has been passed by the learned Rent Controller and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) . In this revision it is contended on behalf of the petitioner tenant that as there are more than four houses owned by the landlady and her sons in Tiruchirapalli town and one of them is occupied by the landlady, it is not open to her to seek eviction of the tenant under sec. l0 (3) (a) (i) of the Act. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, the first floor of the premises fell vacant and the same was not occupied by the son of the landlady and it was allowed to be occupied by her servants. Hence there is lack of bona fides on the part of the landlady inasmuch as if really the landlady wanted the premises for her son, it was not difficult to occupy the first floor.

(3.) . Point No. 2: In this case, it is not in dispute that there are four residential houses owned by the landlady along with her sons. Out of the four houses, one is in her occupation in which herself and her sons are residing. The others are in the possession of the tenants. When the eviction petition was pending in respect of the schedule premises, the first floor over the schedule premises fell vacant. It has not been schedule premises fell vacant. It has not been occupied by the son of the landlady for whose benefit eviction of the tenant from the premises in question is now sought for. It is also noticed by the learned Appellate Authority that the first floor over the schedule premises has been allowed to be used by the servants. The extent of the premises has nowhere been stated. The son of the landlady, for whose benefit possession of the premise is sought, is married and has got one child, the case of the landlady is that he wants to reside separately from the other members of the family, therefore, the schedule premises is required. That being so, when the first floor of the premises fell vacant, it was required of the rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority in order to determine the bona fides on the part of the landlady to evict the tenant, to ascertain the extent and the nature of accommodation available in the ground floor as well as the first floor. In the absence of evidence in this regard, and in view of the fact that the son of the landlady has failed to occupy the first floor as it has been allowed to be occupied by the servants, it is not possible to determine the bona fides of the landlady. Therefore, the authorities below in the absence of such evidence, committed serious illegality in holding that the bona fides of the landlady is established. Accordingly, point No. 2 is answered in the negative.