G.N. RAJARAM Vs. MUKUNTHU N. VENKATARAMA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition against the order 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 to 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 bonafide. Alleging that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner was bonafide 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 objection filed by the petitioner, besides stating that the requirement of the respondent was not bonafide, the petitioner pleaded that the premises had been leased out for a non-residential purpose and, therefor, 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 waster 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 necessity 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 characterizing the requirement of the respondent as lacking in bonafides, the petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the application for eviction.

(3.) THE principal contention of the learned Council for the petitioner is that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner had been let out for non-residential purposes and, therefor, the respondent cannot secure an order for eviction with reference to such a premises under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act on the ground that it is required for residential purposes by way of additional accommodation. In addition, the learned counsel submitted that the concept of a unit of accommodation made up of the portion in the occupation of the landlord and the tenant should be applied and if so done, no order for eviction can be passed against the petitioner. Reliance in this connection was placed by the learned Counsel upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Md. Shafi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, (1977)2 AIR 1977 S.C. 837, 1977(1) RCR 761. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted, relying upon the features disclosed by the report of the Commissioner, that the application under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and the granting of relief thereunder were quite in order and in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. M. Thirupathi Nadar and Sons v. Dr. S.L. Kantha Rao, I.L.R. (1981) Madras 128 and, therefor, no exception could be taken to the eviction order passed against the petitioner. It was also the further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that though the idea of a unit of accommodation is alien under the provisions of the Act, which contains a definition of the word 'building', yet, even adopting that either considering the entire premises or even the ground floor alone as a unit, the claim of the respondent for additional accommodation of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner for residential purposes is fully justified.