V M SUNDDARAJAN Vs. JAYANTHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions are identical and have been filed by the tenants who are occupying different portions of a building as tenants. The facts of the case are somewhat unusal and it is with reference to the peculiar features of the case the petitioners seek to assail the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) PREMISES bearing door No.16, Perumal Mudali Street, Madras 600001 was purchased by the respondent Jayanthilal and his wife-s paternal uncle Babulal under two sale deeds dated 29th April, 1981 from the previous owner of the house. As per the recitals in the sale deeds, the northern portion was purchased by Babulal and the southern portion was purchased by the respondent herein. In all, there were six tenants in occupation of different portions of the building which is a storeyed structure. After the building was purchased by the respondent and Babulal, the previous owner directed the tenants to attorn their tenancy in favour of the purchasers. Accordingly three tenants including the revision petitioners in the two revisions attorned their tenancy in favour of the respondent while the other three tenants attorned their tenancy in favour of the other purchaser Babulal. In terms of the attornment, the tenants were paying rents to the respective purchasers. The respondent herein issued notices to the revision petitioners terminating the tenancy in their favour and called upon them to surrender vacant possession of the respective portions occupied by them. The respondent alleged in the notice that he was living in a rented premises and hence he was in need of the portion used by the petitioners for his own occupation. The petitioners sent reply notices and refused to vacate the portions occupied by them. Therafter respondent filed petitions for eviction under S.10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 19 73.

(3.) BEFORE us the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that in view of the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority about the respondent-s bona fide requirement of the leased portions for their own occupation, it will not be open to him to assail the concurrent findings on a question of tact rendered by the authorities below. He therefore, confined his arguments only to the legal question, viz., whether the respondent who had purchased only a portion of the house can file a petition under S.10 (3) (i) of the Act without the purchaser of the other half portion also joining him in filing the petition.