A BALAGURUSWAMY Vs. R PADMAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioners herein are the unsuccessful tenants before the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority. This Revision Petition is directed against the order of eviction, dated 25.7.2000, passed in R.C.O.P.No.38/1999, on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Uthagamandalam, filed on the ground of own use and occupation, by the respondents/landlords herein, as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Uthagamandalam, in R.C.A.No.16/2000, as per the judgment dated 19.7.2002.

(2.) THE 1st respondent herein, the mother and widow of C.Ramesh Chettiar, and the 2nd respondent herein, the son of C.Ramesh Chettiar, filed the Rent Control Original Petition, R.C.O.P.No.38/1999 against the Revision Petitioners/tenants for eviction from the petition premises, stating that the petition premises bearing Door No.200-G, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund is owned by them, and the respondents herein are brothers, and the Revision Petitioners require the petition premises bona fide for the own use and occupation of the the 2nd respondent herein, being the son of the 1st respondent. At the time of filing the Rent Control Original Petition, the Respondents/landlords have been residing in the premises adjacent to the premises, bearing Door NO.200-F, C.K.C. Building, Hospital Road, Ootacamund. But, after the marriage of the 2nd respondent herein, the 2nd respondent set up separate residence for himself and requires the petition premises for his own use and occupation, from the Revision/Petitioners/tenants, namely, the rented building. THE 1st Revision Petitioner herein, the tenant has constructed his own house at Green Field, Ootacamund and shifted his family to the said newly constructed house. Though the 1st Revision Petitioner herein promised to vacate the petition premises, he placed the 2nd Revision Petitioner herein, in possession of the petition premises, thereby transferred his rights under the lease to the 2nd Revision Petitioner herein. But, the premise in question was let out to the 1st Revision Petitioner herein, on a monthly rent of Rs.350/-, the tenancy being according to English calendar month.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller in consideration of such oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and accepting the case of the Respondents/landlords, found that the requirement of the petition premises by the 2nd respondent for his own use and occupation, to have separate residence with his wife, is bona fide, and ordered eviction as per the order dated 25.7.2000 by allowing the Rent Control Original Petition. THE said order of eviction has been confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, as per the judgment dated 19.7.2002 by allowing the Rent Control Appeal. Against those findings, the Revision Petitioners/tenants have filed the present Revision Petition.