S BALAMANI Vs. V PERIASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlady has preferred the above revision against the order of the Appellate Authority reversing the order of the Rent Controller ordering eviction. THE landlady originally filed the petition for eviction for owner's occupation under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since she was residing in a rental premises. She purchased the property in question on 11.1.1983 from her aunt. When she purchased the same, the property was under the occupation of three tenants including the respondent herein. She filed three R.C.O.Ps., against the three tenants for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation. THE petition filed against the respondent herein is R.C.O.P. No.46 of 1985. THE Rent Controller ordered eviction on 23.1.1987. In the meanwhile, two tenants by name Ramachandran and Mahalingam have vacated the portions in their occupation. THEreupon, the landlady occupied the portions vacated by the two tenants.

(2.) AGAINST the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the tenant/respondent herein filed . R.C.A.No. 43 of 1987 before the Appellate Authority/ Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The tenant has also filed a petition for appointment of a Commissioner before the Appellate Authority to find out as to whether the landlady was occupying her own house or residing in arented premises. The Commissioner filed a report stating that the landlady has been in occupation of a portion of her own premises which was vacated by the tenants Ramachandran and Mahalingam. On this subsequent event, the Appellate Authority has reversed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the landlady is occupying a portion of her own premises and that the portion under her occupation is more than sufficient for her family. Aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Authority, the landlady has filed the present revision.

(3.) THE tenant filed a statement of objection denying the allegations contained in the eviction petition. Though it is contended by Mr.K.R.Thiagarajan that there is no proof to show that the landlady is occupying Door No.7, Bharathiar Road, Madurai-10 the same has not been specifically denied by the tenant in his statement of objections. THE tenant has also denied the purchase of the property in question by the landlady for her own use. THE tenant has further stated that the landlady is having her own house and is living there.