R PERIYASAMY Vs. T BHAGYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Rent Control appellate Authority, namely the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in rca No. 1212 of 2004 which arose from the order of eviction passed in RCOP no. 425 of 2003 by the Rent Controller, namely the XII Judge, Court of Small causes, Madras.

(2.) THE original landlord namely the husband of the first respondent herein, filed two petitions in RCOP Nos. 425 and 426 of 2003 for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation stating that the premises bearing Old No. 23, New No. 107, Sundaram Pillai Nagar, Vaidyanatha Mudali street, Ennore High Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai, belonged to him; that the respondents in the RCOPs were the tenants under him; that in the rear portion the family of the landlord is living; that his wife started a School under the name and style of Angels Baby Land in the first floor; that in the front portion, number of shops are situated; that six tenants are occupying the same; that out of six, two are the respondents in the main RCOPs; that originally, the said School had LKG, UKG, 1st 2nd and 3rd Standards; that thereafter, recognition was granted for Standards I to X; that every academic year, the strength has become increasing; that even for the purpose of keeping the library books and also for running the School, they do not have sufficient accommodation; that what is available with them in the first floor is insufficient, and hence, they decided to vacate all the tenants; that accordingly, it was informed to them; but, they were not amenable, and under the circumstance, it became necessary to file the said petitions.

(3.) THE only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that in the instant case, the School is, admittedly, being run by a Trust; that according to the original landlord, he requires the premises for additional accommodation for running the School; that the landlord has nothing to do with the School, since it is being run by a Trust; that the wife of the landlord is only the Correspondent and also the Principal; that she is being paid by the Trust; that under the circumstances, the Trust is actually the tenant under the landlord who is the original petitioner before the Rent controller; that in the instant case, Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Act cannot be applied since additional accommodation could be asked for only for any one of the members of the landlord's family and not for any other purposes; that in the instant case, once there is a clear proof that the School belonged to a Trust, and the landlord's wife is actually the Correspondent cum Principal, the said provision of law could not be applied; that in such circumstances, the RCOP itself was not maintainable and should have been rejected by the authorities below, but not done so, and hence, the orders of the authorities below have got to be set aside.