G N RAJARAM Vs. MUKUNTHU N VENKATARAMA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition against the orders of the authorities below directing his eviction from the premises in his occupation, on an application taken out by the respondent herein under section 10(3)(c) 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 petitioner is in occupation of a room in the ground-floor measuring about 10 feet by 8 feet in door No.52, Krishnapuram 2nd street, Madurai City, belonging to the respondent herein. There is no dispute that the respondent is living with seven members of his family in the first floor portion of this building. According to the respondent, the two rooms and a kitchen available in the first-floor are inconvenient and insufficient to accommodate the members of his family and that water facilities are not available in the first floor. Besides, the respondent also stated that his widowed sister-in-law, who has been staying with him, has heart trouble and could not get up the staircase to reach the first-floor. With a view to secure the ground-floor for residential purposes as and by way of additional accommodation, the respondent intimated two other tenants who were in occupation of portions in the ground-floor and they had vacated. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice on 22.11.1977 to the petitioner, but the petitioner sent a reply stating that the respondent was only desirous of securing increased rent and that the need was not bona fide. Alleging that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner was bona fide required by the respondent by way of additional accommodation for residential purposes and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as he owned two other buildings, the respondent filed R.C.O.P. No.37 of 1978 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Madurai Town, praying for an order of eviction against the petitioner.

(2.) In the statement of objections filed by the petitioner, besides stating that the requirement of the respondent was not bona fide, the petitioner pleaded that the premises had been leased out for a non-residential purpose and, therefore, the respondent cannot seek an order for eviction on the ground of his requirement by way of additional accommodation for residential purposes. It was also the further plea of the petitioner that the members of the family of the respondent were all conveniently residing in the first-floor portion and that accommodation would be sufficient and that the portion in the occupation of the petitioner is not required by the respondent. The heart ailment from which the sister-in-law of the respondent was stated to be suffering was denied by the petitioner. Referring to the availability of toilet and water facilities in both the floors, the petitioner stated that three rooms besides the non-residential portion were used by the respondent and there was no necessary to change it. The petitioner urged that he will be subjected to great hardship in the event of an order for eviction being passed and denied that the building owned by him can be put to non-residential user. Reiterating that the portion in the occupation of the respondent was convenient and would suffice and characterising the requirement of the respondent as lacking in bona fides, the petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the application for eviction.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller, on behalf of the respondent, Exhibits A-l to A-7 were marked and the respondent was examined as P.W.I, while, on behalf of the petitioner, he examined himself as R.W.I. A Commissioner was deputed to make an inspection of the premises and he submitted a report and a plan and they were marked as Exhibits C-l and C-2. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the requirement of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner by the respondent as and by way of additional accommodation is bona fide, as the sister-in-law of the respondent, who had been living with him, was suffering from congestive failure disabling her from climbing the upstairs. Rejecting the plea of the petitioner that a building occupied for non-residential purposes cannot be asked for as and by way of additional accommodation for residential purposes, the learned Rent Controller found that such a requirement could be countenanced under section 10(3)(c) of the Act and that the consideration of relative hardship would not require the dismissal of the application for eviction as the hardship caused to the respondent by refusing to grant an order for eviction will be more than that caused to the petitioner by granting it. On these conclusions, an order for eviction was passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.47 of 1980 before the appellate authority (Additional Subordinate Judge), Madurai. On a consideration of the evidence, the appellate authority concurred with the conclusions of the learned Rent Controller and found that the requirement of the respondent for additional accommodation was bona fide and that there was no legal impediment in granting an order of eviction in his favour. In that view, the appeal was dismissed. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.