SUNDARI Vs. R. MANJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is before this court challenging the order of conviction on the ground of owner's occupation concurrently by both the courts below in the petition filed by the respondent/landlord.

(2.) HEARD Mr. H. Adaikala Arockiaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C. Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) THE Rent Controller, considering both the pleadings and evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the plea of the respondent/landlord is bonafide and she is presently living with her married second daughter and she bonafidely requires the petition premises. The Rent Controller took note of the fact that except the oral evidence of the petitioner no other evidence available on the side of the petitioner/tenant to prove that the respondent/landlord is having property other than the petition premises, even though it is pleaded in the counter statement. When the respondent's husband passed away, respondent is living with her married second daughter, definitely it will not be a conducive atmosphere for the respondent to live with her married second daughter, especially when the in laws of the daughter are often visiting. More so, when she has got a property on her own, it is not only the factum of possession of the property but also the treatment to be given to the old lady, namely the respondent, that has to be taken into consideration by the court. Certain facts cannot be proved as the treatment and other emotional issues are involved. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court as confirmed by the Appellate Court recognising the bonafide requirement of the respondent is sustainable and there is no perversity on the orders passed by the courts below. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition fails.