GOVINDARAJ Vs. H SURAJ BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment in RCA. No. 1228 of 2005 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, which had arisen out of the order in RCOP. No. 1144 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Controller (X Judge, Small Cause Court) Chennai. The tenant, who had lost his case before the Courts below, is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) RCOP. NO. 1144 of 2004 was filed before the Rent Controller (X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chenna) under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (herein after "the Act" for short ).

(3.) THE brief facts stated in the petition filed by the petitioner/landlord is that the respondent became tenant under the petitioner/landlord for non-residential purpose in a land measuring 387 sq. ft and 412 sq. ft for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,750/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively. The petitioner's husband is doing pawn broker shop at Door NO. 18, 4, 3, and 21 in Dr. Sathasivam Road, T-Nagar, Chennai-17. So the shops in possession of respondents 1 and 2 are absolutely necessary for the petitioner in good faith. The petitioner's husband is not having any other building at Chennai. The petitioner through her agent had approached the respondents to vacate and hand over the petition schedule properties, but they refused to accede to the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner issued notice to the respondent. In the reply notice, the respondents would contend that the entire first floor of the petition scheduled premises is being used for residential purpose of the petitioner and the ground floor is being used by the petitioner and her son for conducting their business. Hence, the petition for eviction.