C KUPPUSWAMY NAIDU Vs. V KRISHTAPPA CHETTY DIED

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 1st 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 herein 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 bona fide. 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 bona fide required the premises for keeping the vehicles of his son and the petitioner, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application for eviction.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide at all as he was only anxious to ensure enhanced rent from the petitioner and did not genuinely require the premises in question for parking the aconter and the cycles. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner is not consistent at all in his case with reference to the so-called demand for payment of higher rent and that there is absolutely no material in support thereof and, therefore, the conclusion of the authorities below that the requirement is bona fide does not deserve to be disturbed. It is seen from the evidence as to the two cycles that he has no separate space to park those vehicles. In view of this admission of the petitioner himself, the bona fides of the requirement are clearly made out. Whether there was any demand for enhanced rent which would detract from the bona fide has next to be considered. It is seen from Exhibit P-1 that the landlord issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the monthly rental in respect of the premises is Rs. 80 and that he requires the premises in the occupation of the petitioner for keeping his sons vehicles. Exhibit P-2 in the reply sent by the petitioner to Exhibit P-4. THErein, the petitioner states that the monthly rent payable by him is only rs. 40 and not Rs. 80 and that certain payments are made in accordance therewith. THE requirement for the purpose of keeping the vehicles of the son of the landlord is denied. It is further seen from Exhibit. P-2 that though the petitioner stated that the landlord had made a claim falling under section 10 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act with a view to somehow evict the petitioner, that was only because the petitioner had not agreed to the demand to pay an enhanced rent. THE petitioner has not stated how much was demandad by the respondent and when, In the counter, the petitioner would say that a higher rent at Rs. 100 per mensum was demanded. Examined as R. W. 1, the petitioner would say that the landlord demanded rent at Rs. 80 per mensem. THEre is no dispute that after the exchange of Exhibits P-1 andp-3, an application in H. R. C. No. 614 of 1981 was filed by the petitioner and rents had been deposited at the rate Rs. 40 per mensem pursuant to the orders pasrsd therein and this is established by Exhibit P-1 produced by the petitioner. THEre is no evidence, to show that subsequent to the passing of the order in h. R. C. No. 614 of 1981 and prior to the filing of application for eviction on 15th July, 1981, there was any demand whatever for payment of enhanced rent by the petitioner. If really there was such a demand and landlord had refused to receive the rent, one would have normally expected the petitioner to have issued a notice calling upon the landlord to receive the rent or informing him that he will resort to the remedies provided under the Act for payment or deposit of the rents. In the absence of evidence of steps taken by the petitioner, it is obvious that the so-called demand for enhanced rent at the rent of Rs. 100 per mensem is a total myth. THE authorities below have adverted to the evidence in rela-tion to the demand stated to have been made by the landlord for enhanced rent and have found that it is not made out by the evidence on record. It, therefore, follows that the authorities below were quite in order in having pronounced upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord for the purposes of keeping the scooter and the cycles of his son, P. W. 1. In any event, on the evidence, the authorities below have found as a fact that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide and no material has been placed before this Court to show that conclusion based on the appreciation of evidence is in any manner erroneous. No other point was urged. Consequently, the order of eviction passed by the authorities below is upheld and the Civil Revision petition is dismissed with costs.