NANGAYAR AMMAL Vs. KANTHI RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. 50 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate, Judge, Tuticorin, which in turn arose out of the order pased in R.C.O.P. No. 224 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif of Tuticorin.

(2.) The landlady is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under S. 10(2)(1) and under S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by the Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). According to the landlady, the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from January, 1982 onwards till the date of filing the petition. In spite of the notice, the tenant failed and neglected to pay the rent and thereby committed wilful default in payment of rent, as contemplated under S. 10(2)(1) of the Act. The landlady also required the portion under the occupation of the tenant under S. 10(3)(a) (iii) of the Act. The landlady's husband is carrying on bakery business in a rental premises and he is not having any other non-residential premises of his own. Therefore, the Landlady required the petition premises for the business purpose of her husband. The husband of thelandlady examiened himself as P.W. 1. The tenant examined two of his brothers as R. Ws. 2 and 3. The landlady filed 9 documents, and the tenant filed 7 documents. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant commited wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period and hence is liable to be evicted under S. 10(2)(1) of the Act. So also, the Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the landlady established her bona fide in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Thus the eviction was ordered on both these grounds. Aggrieved, the tenant filed appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, appraising the facts arising in this case, came to the conclusion that the tenant did not commit any wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. He further held that the landlady failed to establish her bona fide in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on both these grounds was set aside by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is against this order, the present revision has been preferred by the landlady.

(3.) Learned counsel for the landlady/ petitioner submitted as under :- . The tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. The tenant never used to pay the rent in time. In spite of the notice issued, the tenant was not regular in payment of rent. The Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in reversing the well considered eviction order of the Rent Controller. It was therefore pleaded that the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority may be set aside and that of the Rent Controller may be restored.