CHELLAMMAL Vs. KRISHNAVENI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant who lost her case before the authorities below is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed RCOP No. 18/1994 under sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called'the Act') for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition property. THE respondent/landlady pleaded that she is in need of the petition mentioned property for her own use and occupation and once and for all she wanted to settle at the property. She further stated in the RCOP that she is not owning any other house excepting the petition mentioned property. THE revision petitioner herein as tenant resisted the RCOP by contending that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide and the same has been filed to evict her as she did not pay heed to the landlady's demand of rs. 400/- per month as rent. THE learned Rent Controller by order dated 26. 6. 2001 allowed the RCOP against which the revision petitioner filed an appeal in RCA no. 5/2001 and the learned Appellate Authority by order dated 31. 1. 2005 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Challenging the order dated 31. 1. 05, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions:- (1) 1979-II M. L. J. 355 (Jameema Beevi v. Easwarlal patel); (2) 1983ii M. L. J. 354 (Palaniappa Chettiar v. Simen george) and 1999-III M. L. J. 303 (Jagatrakshagan v. Futaree Bai ).