KARUPAYI Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil revision petitions filed by the respective tenants under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), relating to two different portions of the same building. They are against the same landlord, and are taken up together since they involve same question of law, though at the appellate stage two separate appellate orders were passed, both dated 17.2.1993. Both the tenants have failed in both the courts below, since concurrently eviction order has been passed against each of them under Sec.l0(3)(a) (i) of the Act. Actually, on the whole, the same landlord filed 7 R.C.O.Ps. including the present R.C.O.P.Nos.244 of 1981 and 241 of 1981 for evicting 7 different tenants occupying the different portions of the abovesaid same building under Sec. 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act, on the footing that he bona fide required the entire building, that is, all the 7 portions thereof, for his own residential occupation. But, with reference to five R.C.O.Ps., other than the present ones, the landlord obtained exparte eviction orders through court and also got possession of the respective portions thereof in 1983 itself, while the present R.C.O.Ps. were pending. The present R.C.O.Ps. were disposed of only on 26.8.1987 by the Rent Controller and the said order dated 26.8.1987 in each of the two cases has also been confirmed by the respective appellate orders dated 17-2-1993 in R.C.A.Nos.78 of 1987 and 77 of 1987 respectively.

(2.) THE only submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in each of the civil revision petitions is that the landlord having taken possession of the abovesaid five portions from the other five tenants, the present R.C.O.Ps. are not maintainable, except under Sec. 10(3)(c) of the Act, and not under Sec.l0(3)(a)(i) thereof and that the R.C.O.Ps. have to be dismissed even under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act since the relative hardship spoken to therein has been neither pleaded nor proved.

(3.) SO, it is clear that Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor and General Traders, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1409 will have no application to the present case. That apart, in the said decision itself, regarding how far subsequent events have to be taken note of in deciding a list, the following significant observation has been made: