T K KAMESWARAN Vs. R SANTHANAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 6.7.1999 passed in R.C.A.No.859/1995 on the file of VIII Small Causes Court, Madras (Rent Control Appellate Authority) confirming the order dated 20.10.1995 passed in RCOP No.753/1989, on the file of the XV Small Causes Court,(Rent Control Authority) Madras.

(2.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner. He filed RCOP No.753/1989 on the file of the rent controller (15th Small Causes Judge) under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called 'the Act'. THE rent controller by order dated 20.10.1995 allowed the RCOP No.753/1989 only on the ground of 10(3)(a)(iii) and rejected the RCOP on the other ground. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.1995 the tenant alone filed an appeal in RCA No.859/1995 and the appellate authority by order dated 6.7.1999 held that the landlord has not proved his bonafide in requiring the petition property for his own occupation and the landlord has failed to prove that the tenant is guilty of such an act and conduct which are nuisance to the occupiers of the other portions in the same building or buildings in the neighbourhood. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 6.7.1999, the landlord has filed the above revision petition under Sec.25 of the Act, 1960.

(3.) THE tenant opposed the RCOP No.753/1989 by filing a counter by stating that the area occupied by him is only 150 sq.ft., and not 227 sq.ft., as wrongly stated in the RCOP. He is running a welding and fabricated shop after obtaining a valid licence from the Chennai Corporation. He was also issued with the permanent Small Scale Industrial certificate in the premises by the Regional Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce, Chennai. 2. He further pleaded that he is in occupation of the premises for more than 25 years. THErefore the allegation of the landlord that his business is a source of perennial nuisance to others is not correct. He further questioned the attitude of the landlord in filing a petition for fixation of fair rent and also RCOP No.753/1989 and stated that there is no bonafide in the petition.