L SAVITHRI Vs. P SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlady before the Courts below is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The landlady, who failed in her attempt before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority in securing eviction of the respondent / tenant from the petition premises bearing Door No. 6, Vannarpet, Garden Road, Uthagamandalam, on the ground of own use and occupation for the purpose of her second son, has filed this Revision Petition.

(2.) The landlady, as petitioner, filed the Rent Control Original Petition in which it is stated that she is residing along with her unmarried son as well as her other two sons, who were married, along with their respective families, at Door No. 104-A, flower Cottage, Uthagamandalam, that her second son Jagadeesan intends to live separately with his family, for which purpose, the petition premises was required by the petitioner / landlady, that though the respondent / tenant agreed to vacate the petition premises, he is postponing delivery of possession of the premises on some pretext or other, that the lawyer's notice dated 12.11.1997 sent by the petitioner was received by the respondent / tenant on 13.11.1997, that the petitioner / landlady's second son does not own any residential or non-residential building in Uthagamandalam town and that even in respect of the premises, where the petitioner / landlady is residing along with her sons and their respective families, the second son has no share. On these grounds, the petitioner / landlady has filed the Rent Control Original Petition for direction to the respondent to vacate the petition premises.

(3.) The Rent Control Original Petition was resisted by the tenant as respondent by filing counter wherein he has admitted the tenancy and the monthly rent in respect of the petition premises. It is further stated that the premises where the petitioner / landlady is put up with her sons and their respective families is sufficient for her, that the requirement of the petition premises sought for own use and occupation for the petitioner / landlady's second son Jagadeesan is not bonafide, that even after filing the petition, the petitioner / landlady has rented out two residential premises belonging to her to some third parties on higher rent, that if really the petitioner / landlady is in dire necessity of the petition premises, she would not have let out the said premises and that it was only when he refused to pay the enhanced rent at the rate of 1000/- per month, the petitioner / landlady has filed the Rent Control Original Petition. On these grounds, the respondent / tenant sought for dismissal of the petition.