AZRA MUKERJI Vs. SANDIS INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority namely the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, made in RCA No.291 of 2002 whereby the order of the Rent Controller namely the XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, allowing the petition in RCOP No.291/2002 on the ground of owner's occupation, was reversed by dismissing the petition.

(2.) THE Power of Attorney of the revision petitioner-landlady filed the said RCOP under Sec.10(3)(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 inter alia alleging that the petition mentioned premises belonged to the landlady; that pursuant to the agreement of tenancy entered into between the parties on 18.7.1985, the respondent-tenant has been in occupation of the building; that the monthly rental was Rs.2,250/-; that an advance of Rs.10,000/- was paid; that the husband of the petitioner is a Medical Practitioner in the Mission in the foreign country; that after the assignment, they were to come back to India; that her son is being educated in India; that all of them wanted to come back to their residence in India; that there was a request made by the petitioner through the Power Agent, to the respondent to vacate the apartment; but, it was being denied; that there was exchange of notices, and under the circumstances, there arose a necessity for filing the petition for eviction before the Rent Controller.

(3.) IN support of the revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the eviction was sought for on the ground of owner's occupation; that P.W.2 was the power of attorney, who has also given evidence before the Court; that there was a letter issued by the landlady; that apart from that, there was also exchange of notice between the parties; that the reasons adduced at the time of the filing of the RCOP, were twofold; that firstly, her son was being educated in the City of Madras, and after his education, he has to occupy the premises; that secondly, the landlady's husband is a Medical Practitioner in an Association in the foreign country; that after his assignment was over, they have to come back to INdia and settle down in Madras; that for that purpose, the premises is required; and that P.W.1 has categorically given evidence as to the averments found therein.