K KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. D R SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the tenant in R. C. O. P. No. 16 of 1983, on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirupattur. The subject matter of this revision is a residential building occupied by the petitioner. Landlord is the respondent herein.

(2.) LANDLORD sought eviction of the tenant from the scheduled building on the ground that he needs the building bona fide for his own occupation. Initially, both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate authority found that the landlord is entitled to get eviction, and the claim is bona fide The matter came to this Court in revision filed by the very same petitioner in C. R. P. No. 226 of 1990. Before this Court, it was contended that the respondent has purchased a residential building and several other properties in the name of his wife and son and the subsequent acquisition disentitles the respondent from getting possession of the building. As per order dated 16. 2. 1990, this Court set aside the decisions of the Authorities below and remanded the matter to be considered afresh by the Appellate authority. The relevant portion of the order of this Court reads thus: ' It is not in dispute and indeed it is also accepted by the Appellate Authority in paragraph 9 of its order that subsequent to the filing of the application for eviction by the respondent, some properties had been purchased and the subsequent purchase should also be taken into account while considering the application filed for eviction by the respondent herein praying for an order of eviction against the petitioner. However, the Appellate Authority after referring to the three sale deeds under which properties have been acquired after the date of filing of the application for eviction, stated that as they stood in the name of the wife and son of the respondent, the respondent cannot be stated to be in occupation of a residential building of his own. However, under Sec. 10 (3) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the requirement is that the landlord or any member of his family should not be in occupation of a residential building and under Sec. 2 (6) (A) of the Act,' member of his family' in relation to landlord would include his spouse, son and others as well. This aspect of the matter has not be considered by the Appellate Authority and a decision on this question would be necessary for the disposal of the appeal. Inasmuch as that aspect, had not been gone into and that would be decisive on the question of entitlement of the respondent to an order of eviction against the petitioner, the order of the appellate Authority cannot be sustained. Consequently, the civil revision petition is allowed, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and C. A. No. 68 of 1985 is remitted to the Appellate Authority, Tirupattur, for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in light of the observations contained herein.' (Paras. 2 and 3) After receipt of the order, the Appellate Authority again reconsidered the matter and came to the conclusion mat the landlord is entitled to get possession of the building. It came to the conclusion that the building acquired by the wife or the vacant land acquired by the son will not disentitle the landlord to get an order of eviction, and it also took note of the fact that even those properties had been sold away and by the time the judgment was pronounced by the Appellate Authority, neither the son nor the wife of the landlord was in possession of any of those items. The bona fides of the landlord was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is against the revised judgment of the Appellate Authority, this revision is filed.

(3.) IT was further contended by learned counsel that the sale deed taken in the name of the wife and subsequent transfer of the same by her are all a make-belief affair, and that it only to avoid an adverse decision in this case. According to learned counsel, the very purchase in the name of the wife was benami or nominal, and in fact the subsequent sale was by the respondent himself in the name of his wife. He also referred to the oral evidence let in subsequent to the order of demand. The Appellate Authority considered the question and rejected it in its entirety.