R S VISALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. MANILAL R JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlady is the petitioner in both the C. R. Ps. THE landlady filed three petitions for eviction against three tenants on the ground of owner's occupation under Sec. 10 (3 ) (a) (i) 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 petition- premises is situate at No. 24, Amman Koil Street , Park Town , Madras-3. THE landlady purchased the petition- premises. THE landlady is residing in ekambarakuppam in Andhra Pradesh. According to the landlady she has no premises of her own in the City of Madras. She is carrying on business in Madras along with other partners. She is having two sons and one daughter. One son studied upto B. Com. THE other son studied upto Plus II. THE daughter is studying in VIII Standard. She wants to give better education to her children at Madras. She is also not in sound health. In order to get better treatment, she wants to come and live in her house in Madras City. For all these reasons, she required the petition- premises bona fide under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act.

(2.) ON the other hand, the respondents contended that the requirement of the landlady under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act is not bona fide. It was submitted that she is having several premises of her own in the City of madras. She can also give education in the place, where she is now residing. She is only a partner in a business at Madras and the other partners can look after that business. The landlady has got possession of one room in the upstairs and one room in the ground floor. Therefore, the petitions ought to have been filed under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Act and not under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act. After one of the tenants Lakshmana Sa vacated, that portion was let out to some other tenant. Therefore, according to the tenants that the petitions filed under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act are not maintainable.

(3.) I have heard the rival submissions. The landlady filed the petitions for eviction under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act. The landlady is residing in a village near Andhra Pradesh. According to her, she is having two sons and one daughter and she wanted to give them better education in Madras city. The authorities below pointed out that in the modem times the education can be given anywhere in this country and it is not necessary that the education should be given only at Madras City. The landlady submitted that she is having a business in Madras City, and therefore, she has to come to the City of ten. The tenants pointed out that she is a partner to the business and the business is being looked after by the other partners. Therefore, her presence is not always necessary for looking after the business. The landlady said that she is a sick person and she required medical attendance and therefore, she is coming to Madras often. The authorities below pointed out that medical facilities can get anywhere and there is no evidence on record to show as to what kind of ailment the landlady was suffering. One Lakshmana Sa was occupying a portion in the ground floor, consisting of a hall, three rooms, a bath room and an open space with another hall. Lakshmana Sa was using it for residential purpose. The said Lakshmana Sa surrendered that portion to the landlady. The landlady is now in occupation of that residential portion. But according to the landlady, that portion was let out to one A. Venkatasami Mudaliar and R. Y. Singara Mudaliar and company and they are in occupation of the said portion. The landlady is keeping a room in the ground floor and she is in occupation of the same, wherein the electric meter and the telephone cable joints have been installed. The said room is admeasuring 7 feet to 10 to 12 feet. Therefore, the landlady is using the said room in the ground floor for her own purpose. In the oral evidence adduced by her, she has stated that she is in possession of one room in the upstairs, wherein she was keeping her belongings. It was also brought to the notice of the court that during the pendency of these revisions, the tenant in c. R. P. No. 1653 of 1986 vacated and surrendered his portion to the landlady. The said portion consisting of two rooms, open space and a toilet. The landlady is in occupation of this portion. This portion is kept under lock and key of the landlady. Therefore, it remains to be seen that one room in the upstairs, one room in the down stair and the portion vacated by the tenant during the pendency of these revisions are now in the occupation of the landlady. If the landlady is in occupation of a portion of the petition- premises, then if she requires possession of other portions, which are under occupation of the tenants, petition under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act is not maintainable. The landlady has got to file the petition under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Act. If the petition is filed under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Act, the hardship to the tenant must be pleaded and proved. But in the present petitions, there is no averment with regard to the hardship that may be caused to the tenants. No evidence was also produced on this aspect. Therefore, the petitions filed under sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act are not maintainable according to the authorities below.