K CHINNAKANNAMMAL Vs. BIHARILAL S LULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady, who succeeded in securing an order for eviction before the Rent Controller on her application filed 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') and lost before the Appellate Authority, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The premises in the occupation of the respondent is a portion in the first floor in Door No.13, Bo Begum Street, Mount Road, Madras-2. The petitioner has two daughters and two sons. The first son of the petitioner, at the time of initiation of proceedings, was about 26 years and her second son was aged about 22 years. The first son of the petitioner was of marriageable age and the petitioner was seeking alliance for his marriage. The second son of the petitioner was pursuing his studies. The petitioner stated that in the event of the marriage of her first son, more accommodation would be required to comfortably house the couple and also to accommodate other relations who may come and stay. The second son, according to the petitioner, also required a separate study room. Besides, of the two daughters of the petitioner, both of whom were married, one was living in Madras and she used to come and stay with the petitioner quite often and the other daughter, her husband and the members of her family used to come and stay with the petitioner during vacation and festival days and other family functions, which required more accommodation. Under those circumstances, the petitioner stated that she bona fide required the premises in the occupation of the respondent as and by way of additional accommodation and filed H.R.C.No. 1160 of 1979 under section 10 (3) (c) of the Act praying for an order of eviction against the respondent.

(2.) In the counter filed by the respondent, he denied the requirement of the petitioner and stated that the portion already available with her was more than enough to accommodate all the members of the family comfortably even in future and that her requirement is not bona fide. A plea that the hardship that is likely to be caused to the respondent will outweigh the advantages to the petitioner by the granting of an order of eviction was also put forth. An objection that the petitioner is not under law entitled to evict the respondent, as he is occupying a non-residential portion was also raised. The respondent, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application for eviction.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, on behalf of the petitioner, Exhibits P-l to P-7 were marked and her son was examined as P.W.1, while, on behalf of the respondent, Exhibit R-l series was filed and the brother of the respondent was examined as R.W.1. A Commissioner was also appointed to make a local inspection and Exhibit C-l is the report of the Commissioner with plans appended. 'On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the requirement by the petitioner of the premises in the occupation of the respondent by way of additional accommodation is genuine and bona fide and that the hardship that is likely to be caused to the respondent would not outweigh the advantage to the landlord and allowed the application ordering the eviction of the respondent. Aggrieved by that, the respondent herein preferred H.R.A.No.. 2267 of 1979 before the Appellate Authority (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The Appellate Authority found that the application filed by the petitioner herein under section 10 0) (c) of the Act is not maintainable and that the requirement of the petitioner is not bona fide. On those conclusions, the application for eviction filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.