P V PRASAD Vs. JAYASHREE S SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras , affirming an order of eviction passed by the Rent controller namely XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras , in RCOP No. 773/2005 on the ground of additional accommodation is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(2.) THE landlady, the respondent herein, filed the RCOP stating that she is the owner of Old Door No. 6, New No. 6a, Harlys Road, kilpauk; that the building consists of ground floor and first floor; that she was residing in the ground floor; that the first floor was rented out to the petitioner herein by way of rental agreement dated 14. 6. 2003, on the monthly rental of Rs. 7,500/-; that the tenant paid an advance of Rs. 82,500/-; that she is living with her eldest son, who is married and has got his children; that she is living with all the members of the family; that there has been often quarrel due to the small place in which they are being accommodated; that her grandchildren have grown up; that under the circumstances, it would be very difficult to accommodate all the family members in the ground floor; that she bonafide requires the first floor for her additional accommodation; that a notice was issued on 5. 3. 2005 to the petitioner which brought forth a reply on 11. 3. 2005, and under the circumstances, she was constrained to file the RCOP before the rent Controller

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner advancing his arguments at the time of the hearing of the revision, raised a legal plea that in the instant case, the application was brought forth for additional accommodation under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Act; that in such a case, the application could be filed only after the period of lease is over; that in the instant case, originally, the lease period was from 4. 6. 2003 to 14. 5. 2004; that it was a written agreement; that an endorsement was made extending the lease for a further period of 11 months ending with 14. 5. 2005; but, the eviction application was filed even before that period was over; that the provisions of sec. 10 (3) (d) would mandate that the application for eviction for additional accommodation could be filed only after the lease period is over; that the instant application filed, was not maintainable at all; that on that ground, the application should have been rejected; that the lower authorities were not called upon to go into the other aspects of the matter; that even assuming that all other aspects were in favour of the landlady, the application itself was not maintainable at all, and under the circumstances, the Rent Controller should have rejected the application outright.