ANANDAN Vs. K R LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Control authorities, that the landlord needed the premises in question bona fide for the residence of his son through his ficst wife and his family. The respondent landlord had filed the petition alleging that his family consisted of fourteen members and that the accommodation available to him was insufficient, apart from the fact that there were often quarrels between his son Balanageswaran (P.W.2) through his first wife, and the landlord second wife. The stand taken by the tenant was that there were other premises in the possession of tenants on the ground floor of the building in question, out of which the landlord could get one and give it to his son. The claim that the accommodation in the possession of the landlord was insufficient or that his son through his first wife and his family were not able to get along with the landlord second wife was also denied.

(2.) The landlord in his evidence gave details of his family and deposed to the disputes between his second wife and his son through his first wife. The son was also examined as a witness. The Rent Controller found that the landlord son through his first wife and his second wife were not getting on well. He also found that there was no vacant accommodation available to the landlord and that the portion in the occupation of the tenant-petitioner had independent bath-room and latrine, while the other tenants had common bath-room and latrine. Accordingly the landlord application was allowed. This order was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

(3.) The main contention raised in the revision petition is that the claim of the landlord should, as a matter of fact, fall under S.10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and not under S.10 (3) (a) (i). This contention was also raised before the Appellate Authority. Now it is settled law in this Court that the words of his own occurring in S.10(3) (a) (i) meant that the premises must belong exclusively to the landlord and that, where the landlord owns and occupies premises of which he is a co-sharer, he cannot be said to be in occupation of premises of his own. This was the view taken by Ismail, J (as he then was) in S.M. Abdul Makki v. M.K. Abdul Azeez, (1978) 2 M.L.J. 9 (S.N.). This was followed by Sengottuvelan, J. in K.M. Kassim v.P. Thangavelu, (1981) T.L.N.J.. 297. In that case the landlord and his brother occupied the first floor, and he had filed the eviction petition on the ground that his brother needed the portion on the ground floor. It was held by the learned Judge that the petition under S.10 (3) (a) (1) of the Act was maintainable.