SURESH KUMAR KOTHARI CHENNAI Vs. T RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING concurrent findings and order of eviction on the ground of Additional Accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Tenant has preferred this Revision.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original rank in R. C. O. P. No. 254 of 2001 on the file of Rent Controller (XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai).

(3.) ASSAILING the Impugned Order, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has contended that the Courts below ought to have held that there is no Landlord " Tenant relationship between Petitioners and Respondent. Placing reliance upon number of decisions, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner interalia raised following contentions:- / When Petitioner had pleaded that there is no Landlord and Tenant relationship and having filed Petition without prejudice to their claim, eviction petition is not maintainable; / Bonafide requirement is not proved and lack of pleadings was not properly appreciated by courts below; / Under Sec. 10(3)(c) of the Act, hardship need to be proved and relative hardship to Tenant would outweigh advantages to the Landlords since alternative space is available to Landlords to construct ICU.