C. KUPUSWAMY NAIDU Vs. V. KRISHTAPPA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, which is directed against the order of eviction passed against the petitioner by the authorities below on an application taken out by the deceased first respondent herein under Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The deceased first respondent herein was the landlord of a room in the occupation of the petitioner and situate in No. 66, Sattanna Naicken Street, Vepery, Madras-7. The petitioner has been using that room for the purpose of keeping cycles. Claiming that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner was required for the purpose of keeping the vehicles, namely, scooter and cycles belonging to his son, the deceased first respondent issued a notice on 25th November, 1980 demanding vacant possession of the premises by Ist January, 1981 and since that was not complied with, the deceased first respondent filed H.R.C. No. 3232 of 1981 before the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, under Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act praying for an order of eviction against the petitioner.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the petitioner, in opposition to the application for eviction, he contended that owing to the refusal by the deceased first respondent to receive rents, proceedings had to be taken in H.R.C. No. 614 of 1981 that there was a demand for enhanced rent by the deceased first respondent therein at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem and the petitioner refused to accede to such a demand and that led to the filing of the application for eviction and, therefore, the requirement was not bonafide. Besides, the petitioner also put forth the plea that sufficient space was available for the purpose of parking the vehicles and that having regard to the non-residential nature of the premises where the petitioner was carrying on business, the deceased first respondent was not in order in seeking an order for eviction on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for keeping the vehicles of his son and the petitioner, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application for eviction.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, the landlord Krishtappa Chetty, who initiated the proceedings, died and in C.M.P. No. 575 of 1984 taken out by the petitioner, Sri Kannan (P.W.1) was brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased first respondent Krishtappa Chetty for purposes of prosecuting the further proceedings.