GURUSAMY Vs. SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the order passed by the appellate authority cum Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram in r. C. A. No. 27 of 1997, in and by which the dismissal order passed by the Rent controller cum Principal District Munsif, Villupuram in R. C. O. P. No. 12 of 1996 has been confirmed, the landlord has preferred this revision.

(2.) THE case of the landlord can be stated in brief as follows:- THE revision petitioner/landlord is the owner of the petition mentioned premises and the respondent/tenant is occupying the same as tenant for non-residential purpose on agreed rent of Rs. 390/= per month. THE tenant has failed to pay the rents due from February 1995 March 1995 and however, the tenant filed R. C. O. P. No. 16 of 1995 before the Rent Controller praying for permission to deposit the rents before the Rent Controller for the reason that the landlord refused to receive the rent without reasonable cause. Further, the petition mentioned premises is required for the purpose of running Tea shop by the petitioner's second son viz. , G. Anand who had studied upto S. S. L. C. , and that the said Anand is not occupying his own any other non-residential building at Villupuram where the petition mentioned premises is concerned. Further, the tenant has caused damage in a way decreasing the material value and utility of the building by demolishing and putting up flooring to the level of the road and such action of the tenant gives way for the water to enter into the house. THErefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default, bona fide requirement for use and occupation of the son of the landlord and for causing damage and impairing the utility and value of the building.

(3.) COMING to the question of bona fide requirement for the petitioner's second son for the purpose of running Tea shop in the petition mentioned premises, I am to observe that both the appellate authority and the Rent Controller have elaborately considered and appreciated the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and RW1 and probabilities and reasonableness and have concurrently found that there is no bona fide requirement for own use and occupation as claimed by the landlord and instead it is nothing but a mala fide one. Both the authorities have also gone to the extent of observing that the tenant has falsely taken a stand as if Exs. P3 and p4 were licence fee for running Tea stall whereas in fact, that is not correct. Therefore, after considering the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, RW1 and other attending circumstances, both the courts below have concurrently found that the requirement cannot be a bona fide one.