M.C. MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. M. DORAISWAMY CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's revision petition challenging the rejection of his claim for his possession of the tenanted premises mainly on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal occupation. We are not concerned in this case with the other ground on which the claim for possession was made that the building has been used for a purpose other than that for which it was leased out. The circumstances put forth by the landlord in support of claim for personal occupation were that he is now staying at Ponneri in Chingleput District and that with view to get his three daughters married and facilitate fixing proper alliances for them, he is required to stay in the City of Madras. His further case was that if he would be able to help his sons in getting better jobs and that since his income is meager, he also wants to start a business in the City of Madras.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller, however, took the view that the landlord had not taken any steps for starting any business in the City of Madras and that as two of his sons are already employed, it was highly improbable that they would leave the present jobs and search for better jobs by settling down in Madras. Holding that it was not the petitioner's case that his sons are employed in the City of Madras, the Rent Controller rejected the case of the petitioner that he was going to settle down in Madras permanently. He also took the view that rental income was the main source of income of the landlord and having regard to the scarcity of accommodation in Madras where higher rents will be obtained, it was improbable that landlord wanted to do away with the rental income.

(3.) Before the Appellate Authority, the maintainability of the petition for eviction was itself challenged and the Appellate Authority took the view that since the petitioner was not residing in any building of his own in the City of Madras, the petition was maintainable. The Appellate Authority, took the view that except the bare statement of the landlord that he wants to find alliances for his daughters, there was no other circumstances to show that it was necessary for the landlord to take up his residence in the City of Madras. Holding that the City of Madras and Ponneri were connected with electric trains, the Appellate Authority took the view that it was not necessary for the petitioner to take up residence in the City of Madras. It further held that the petitioner can well procure better jobs for his two sons even while residing at Ponneri. With regard to his need for carrying on a business in the City of Madras, the Appellate Authority found that there was nothing to show that he made preparations for starting any business. It observed that the petitioner being in indigent circumstances, he would not choose to forgo the rent realisable from the premises in question by shifting his residence from Ponneri Town to the City of Madras. It doubted the statement of the landlord that he would shift from Ponneri where he had been staying for the last about twenty years. The appeal thus came to be dismissed.