SOHANRAJ KATARIA Vs. V BALASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order of the appellate authority, viz, IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in R.C.A. No.585 of 1983 on the file of his Court.

(2.) THE first revision petitioner is the father and revision petitioners 2 and 3 are his sons. THEy jointly purchased a house bearing door No.24, Sundaram Pillai Street, Purasawalkam, Madras-7. THE respondents, who are tenants, were already in occupation of two portions of the ground-floor in the rear side of the house with independent access to the public road from the rear side. After purchasing the house, the three petitioners entered into an oral partition and allocated different portions of the house to each one of them. Under the said family arrangement and partition, the portion in the occupation of the respondents was allotted to the share of the third petitioner. After attornment of tenancy, the respondents have been paying a monthly rent of Rs.60 and Rs.90 respectively to the third petitioner and obtaining receipts from him. THE tenants have alleged in the reply notices that in spite of their paying rent of Rs.60 and Rs.90 respectively per month, the third petitioner was issuing receipts only for Rs.25 and Rs.50 respectively. We are not very much concerned with this aspect of the matter, for, it has no relevance to the controversy on hand.

(3.) THE respondents contended that the requirement of the third petitioner was not bona fide and that the petition had been filed with an oblique motive, viz., to get them evicted and then let out the premises to new tenants at higher rates of rent. THEy also took up a plea that in any event the petition should have been filed under S.10(3)(c) of the Act and not under S.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. Such a plea was raised on the basis that all the three petitioners constituted the owners of the house and that as joint owners, they can only ask for additional space for more convenient enjoyment of the house by them.