S.S. PURUSHOTHAM CHETTIAR Vs. S. PARASUMAL SOWCAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner. This is one of those cases which has come up to this Court on the fourth round. The tenant -respondent succeeded before the District Court which at that particular point of time could exercise a revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of Act XVIII of 1960. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found the requirement of the landlord of the premises in the occupation of the tenant -respondent to be bona fide. The revisional authority, however, differed. There was also an additional legal contention by the tenant that the application of the landlord was not maintainable because admittedly he had a right of residence in the premises in which he was residing on the date when he filed the application for eviction. As this premises which according to the tenant is his own by reason of the right of residence annexed to his occupation the argument was that the petition by the landlord under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of Act XVIII of 1960 was not maintainable. This gained acceptance before the revisional authority, namely, the District Judge, Cuddalore. It is as against this finding of the learned District Judge that the petition is not maintainable and that the landlord did not establish bona fides, that the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(2.) MR . G. Narasimhalu, has been appointed as amicus curiae as the respondent was not represented. Mr. Narasimhalu's case, is that as this legislation is intended for the benefit of the tenant the words "of his own" in Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act should be interpreted strictly in juxtaposition to the word "occupying" in that Sub -clause; his contention is that the learned District Judge was right when he negatived the claim of the landlord on the foot that he had admittedly a right of residence in the premises in which he was residing on the date when the eviction petition was filed. He would also support the District Judge's observation that since the landlord was old enough, it was not quite possible to comprehend that he would dissociate himself from the rest of the family members at that ripe age so as to live alone. Contending contra, Mr. M. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the landlord would say that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the words "of his own" referred to in Section 10 (3) (a) (i), for the statutory authority deciding on such applications has also the ancillary power to find whether the claim of the landlord is bona fide or not and such an inbuilt safeguard in the generality of the section as a whole is enough to thwart any attempt on the part of a landlord who wants to take undue and irregular advantage of the provisions above cited. He would say that no particular reason which could be accepted and which could be given by a revisional Court was rendered by the learned District Judge when he disagreed with the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority who found that the claim of the landlord was bona fide and he required the possession of the building for his own occupation.

(3.) IT appears to me therefore that the expression "is not occupying a residential building of his own" appearing in Section 10 (3) (a) (i) should be limited to, the situation where the landlord is not occupying a residential building of which he is the sole owner thereof. As already stated, the right of residence which was secured by an internal arrangement or by reason of a decree of Court would not make him the owner of that building, but it would only enable him to gain a privilege which he might or might not exercise. The choice is with him and if he chooses not to reside in that premises, I am of the view that he can seek the benefit of Section 10 (3) (a) (i) and ask for the eviction of the tenant from a premises which he substantially and really owned, provided he satisfied that he bona fide required it.