MURUGAN STORES Vs. S RAMADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Civil revision petition preferred under Sec. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Tamilnadu Act 23 of 1973 and Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1980 against the decree and judgment of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras in RCA No. 398 of 2001 dated 27. 4. 2007 reversing the decree and judgment in RCOP No. 647 of 1998 dated 28. 2. 2001 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras. ) Challenge is made to an order of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, made in RCA No. 398 of 2001 whereby an order of dismissal of a petition in RCOP No. 647/98 by the Rent Controller was reversed, and eviction was ordered.

(2.) THE respondent-landlady brought forth the said application for eviction alleging that the petitioners have occupied a premises mentioned in the application at the monthly rental of Rs. 700/-; that the landlady is occupying only an area of 100 sq. ft. for the purpose of carrying on her lathe pattarai; that it is not sufficient for her; that the premises occupied by the tenants, is adjacent to her portion; that if the wall in between them is removed, she could have sufficient accommodation to carry on the business; that under the circumstances, it is required on the ground of additional accommodation, and hence, eviction was sought for.

(3.) ADVANCING his arguments on behalf of the revision petitioners, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the landlady has brought forth that application without any bonafide; that it is true that she was carrying on her business by drawing a line on the ever-silver utensils; that she was occupying the premises measuring 100 sq. ft. ; that the same would be sufficient for her; that there was no need for any additional accommodation; that the petitioners have been using the premises as godown for storing the ever-silver vessels; that they were having their shop nearby; that the Rent Controller was perfectly correct in dismissing the application, since it has relied on the evidence of the landlady who stated that there were four rooms, out of which two were vacant; that once these rooms were vacant, the landlady could better use them; that no explanation was tendered; that under the circumstances, the application was lacking bonafide, and hence, it was a fit case where the order of the Rent Controller has got to be restored, and the order of the appellate authority has got to be set aside.