MUNUSWAMY Vs. S S NATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the landlord in R.C.O.P. No.42 of 1988, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruppur. He filed the petition for eviction on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in paying the rent, and also on the grounds of change of user and bona fide requirement for own occupation, i.e., for the occupation of his son, who is married and living with the landlord.

(2.) BEFORE eviction proceedings started, the landlord issued notice on 1.11.1988. In that notice, he stated that there was a prior negotiation between the parties wherein the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises within six months, and on the date of notice, the agreed period is due to expire, and that he was just reminding the tenant about the assurance. In the notice, he has stated that the building is required bona fide for the occupation of his son Ranganathan who is married and has two sons. On 18.11.1988, the tenant sent a reply. He denied the so-called assurance referred to in the notice. He also disputed the claim of the landlord that the building is required for his bona fide own occupation. He denied the allegation that the building was put to non-residential user. It was thereafter the eviction petition was filed. In the eviction petition, he has stated that along with him, his son is also residing with his wife and two children. Further, he has got five daughters, of whom three are married, and the second daughter who is a widow is also living with the petitioner in the same house with her two children. Under these circumstances, the landlord wants his married son and his family to live in a separate residence. The other two grounds are, default in paying rent and also conversion of the building into non-residential. It is also stated in the petition that close to the schedule building, the petitioner has got an other building wherein one Thiagarajan is residing, being employed in a banian company opposite to that building. The petitioner has stated that the rent from that building is Rs.475 whereas the rent from the petition mentioned building is Rs.350, and since he is depending only on the rental income, he wants the schedule building so that the income may not be affected.

(3.) BEFORE the Rent Controller, Exs. A-1 and A-2 were marked and the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1.The respondent examined himself as R.W.I and another witness as R.W.2. Exs.R-1 to R-8 were marked on the side of the respondent.