R MARICHAMY Vs. B V PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the Order of eviction under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings [lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, [for short, 'the Act'], for own use and occupation ordered by the Appellate Authority, tenant has preferred this revision. For convenience, parties are referred in their original rank in RCOP.

(2.) EVICTION Petition was filed by the landlords under ss. 10 (3) (a) (iii) and 10 (3) (c) of the Act. First Petitioner is the husband and the second Petitioner is his wife. Respondent is Tenant in respect of a shop portion in D. No. 131, Gill Nagar Extension, Choolaimedu, Chennai, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,750/ -. Landlords are residing in a portion of the ground floor of the Petition premises. First Petitioner/landlord is a Chartered Accountant, having office at No. 21, Kasi Chetty Street , Chennai-79. His son is also an income Tax Practitioner. First Petitioner underwent hernia operation and was advised by doctors not to travel by two wheelers or three wheelers. Hence petitioners filed EVICTION Petition for own use and occupation and additional accommodation.

(3.) APPEARING for the Revision Petitioner/tenant, learned senior Counsel Mr. S. V. Jayaraman submitted that Appellate Authority was not justified in ordering eviction under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. It was further submitted that the essential ingredients under Ss. 10 (3) (a) (iii) and 10 (3) (c) of the Act are entirely different and when the landlord has not preferred any appeal against the relief claimed under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the act, and when no argument was advanced on the said relief, Appellate Authority erred in ordering eviction under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. It was further submitted that without affording opportunity to the Tenant, Appellate Authority independently considered the matter and the Order of eviction passed under sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act is perverse and unsustainable.