LAKSHMI BAI Vs. S M M SAHUL HAMEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 06. 12. 2000 of the Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) in R. C. A. No. 326 of 1999, reversing the order of eviction, Landlords have preferred this Revision Petition. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original rank in R. C. O. P. No. 2419 of 1999.

(2.) 1. Since it is a reversal order, brief facts and events are to be narrated. Landlords' case in brief is as follows:- The premises bearing Door No. 19 (Old No. 22) Kachaleswarar Agraharam Street, Madras " 600 001 belong to Petitioners by a Will dated 22. 06. 1987 which was probated in High Court, Madras in O. P. No. 577 of 1986. The Respondents were inducted as Tenants in respect of back entrance of ground floor portion of the premises for non-residential purpose. The First Petitioner is aged about 75 years and for sentimental reasons want to spend her last days with Daughters in the petition premises, who do not own any property of their own. Eviction Petition was filed under Section 10(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act") for Additional Accommodation and under Sec. 10(2)(i) of the Act on the ground of Wilful Default. 2. 2. The Respondents/Tenants opposed Petition filing detailed Counter Statement, admitting the Tenancy and denying other averments. Main grounds raised by the Tenants are:- The First Petitioner's Daughters are married and residing with their respective Husbands in posh residential localities and the alleged ground that the First Petitioner wants to occupy the Petition Premises to reside along with her married Daughters is unnatural and lacks bonafide. The very maintainability of Eviction Petition was challenged on the ground that Petition Premises being let out for non-residential purpose cannot be sought for residential purpose and that too for additional accommodation. The Respondents have also pleaded that if eviction is ordered, they would be put to greater hardship. 2. 3. Petitioners examined themselves as P. Ws. 1 and 2 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 7 were marked on the side of the Petitioners. Haja Mohideen " Husband of the Second Respondent was examined onbehalf of the Tenants as R. W. 1. To show that there was no wilful default, Tenants have produced Exs. R. 1 to R. 6. 2. 4. Referring to the Will dated 29. 07. 1982 executed by Seetharama Rao " Husband of the First Petitioner and Father of Second Petitioner, learned Rent Controller in his elaborate order held that it was the wish of the Testator that Poojas are to be regularly performed in his house and the First Petitioner's desire to live in the premises in her old age was bonafide. The Rent Controller further held that the First Petitioner being aged, cannot climb staircase to go to First Floor and found that requirement of ground floor is bonafide. Ground of Wilful Default was negatived. 2. 5. Doubting bonafide of the Petitioners, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and held that the First Petitioner residing along with Daughters and her desire to live in the house lacks bonafide. The Appellate Authority further held that for requirement of non-residential purpose, Petition ought to have been filed under Sec. 10(3)(iii) of the Act and not under Sec. 10(3)(c) of the Act. The Appellate Authority observed that the findings of the Rent Controller regarding the wish of the Testator in performing Poojas in the house are not based on evidence, which is impugned in this Revision Petition.

(3.) PLACING reliance upon number of decisions, learned counsel for the Respondents/Tenants submitted that there is no bonafide requirement. Arguing further, learned counsel further submitted that Landlords not being in physical possession of part of the building, Petition filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act for Additional Accommodation is not maintainable. It was further submitted that First Petitioner is living with her Son comfortably at Harrington Road, Chennai, which is a posh residential locality and her desire to reside in demised premises, which is highly commercial and congested locality in George Town, Chennai is unnatural. It was urged that relative hardship caused to the Tenants would be greater than the advantages of the Petitioners.