MUNUSWAMY Vs. S S NATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE concurrent finding given by both courts below, namely the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in R. C. A. No. 2 of 1990 dated 23. 8. 1990 confirming the order of the Rent Controller in R. C. O. P. No. 42 of 1988 dated 12. 12. 1989, is canvassed in this revision by the revision petitioner, who is the landlord.

(2.) THE facts which led to this revision are extracted as follows: THE respondent is the tenant in the rental premises bearing door number 54, Kongu Nagar 4th Street, Thiruppur in Coimbatore District on a monthly rental of Rs. 350 payable every month to the revision petitioner herein. Since the landlord is living in his house which is situated in Muthu Nagar with his family as well as his married son, his wife, children and widowed daughter and her children, in all, totalling twelve, the present residence is not adequate enough for all of them to have a minimum accommodation even and that therefore, the landlord/ revision petitioner requires the rental premises for the occupation of his son. Adding thereto, it was also alleged that the tenant/ respondent having taken the rental premises for his residence is however using the same for a different purpose of conducting a school in Hindu language by putting a name board in front of it, which provides the breach of agreement. THErefore, on the above two grounds provided under Secs. 10 (3) (a) ( i ) and 10 (2) (ii) (b) of the Tamil Nad u Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, eviction was sought for by filing the Rent Control Petition before the rent Controller. On a careful consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence recorded, learned Rent Controller has not accepted the claim of the petitioner as bona fide and therefore, has rejected the said two grounds and accordingly declined to pass the order of eviction. In the appeal preferred by the aggrieved landlord, on a total reappraisal of the entire materials placed before the court and the perusal of the evidence and records, the Rent Control appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the learned Rent controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved at this, the landlord has chosen this Court to vindicate his remedy under Sec. 25 of the Buildings Act, challenging its legality, propriety and correctness.