SRIVARAMMAL SINCE DIED Vs. B KANAKMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORDS who obtained physical possession of the building through Court on 1. 2. 1987, are the revision petitioners.

(2.) THE material facts are as follows:- Petitioners filed r. C. O. P. No. 25 of 1984, on the file of Rent Control Court for cviting the respondents herein, on the ground that they require the building for their own occupation, i. e. , for conducting a Pawn Broker's business. THE Rent controller ordered eviction, and the Appellte Authority confirmed the said decision, against which the respondents herein filed C. RP. No. 3305 of 1986 before this Court. THE Civil Revision Petition was not admitted, and, pursuant to the undertaking given by the respondents herein, the building was taken possession on 1. 2. 1987. THE present petition was filed by the tenants under section 10 (5) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1960, alleging that the landlords did not occupy it within one month from the date of obtaining possession.

(3.) P. W. 2 was examined to prove that he has pledged some of his ornaments on 4. 4. 1988, i. e. the date on which the petitioners started the business of pawnbrokers. P. W. 1, in his evidence, has stated that the petitioners are not doing any business and even on the date when he has examined, the petitioners are doing business at Tindivanam where they are doing the same business. He has also stated that he has got alternate accommodation. He also says that the landlords are not occupying the building in the sence that it is not being used. As against the said evidence, the second petitioner herein was examined as R. W. 1. He stated that on 1. 2. 1987, he took possession of the building. But in early March 1987, his mother became seriously ill and she had to be taken to Madras for treatment. In the second half of March 1987, his mother was operated, and for about a month, she continued to be in the hospital. During that time, there was none to look after the affairs of the mother. He also said that the third petitioner herein is studying in College and because he has engaged in looking after his mother, he could not occupy the building in the real sence of the term. He also said that in August 1987, he applied of licence and the same was obtained by him only in December 1987. Thereafter he started the pawnbroker business. He also says that even on the date when he was examined, he ws continuing the same. In cross-examination, he also said that even though he obtained licence in December, he did not do the busine ss immediately. The Rent Control Court held that because the petitioners herein were looking after the affairs of the mother, who was seriously ill, that is sufficient cause for not making use of the building. It further held that since the building was in the landlords'possession and they also had an intention to make use of it, that will amount to occupation, and, for that reason, the allegation of the respondent is not maintainable.