B LAKSHMIAH Vs. N V BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the concurrent findings of Order of eviction of Rent Control Authorities, Tenant has preferred these Revision Petitions.

(2.) TENANTED premises is D.No.5, Jayaram Chetty Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41. Respondent became Tenant in 1980. Alleging that he has committed default from August 1993 to August 1994, landlord filed Eviction Petition to evict the Tenant on the ground of wilful default. The Petitioner/ landlord also sought for eviction, under Ss. 10(3)(a)(i) " owner's occupation and Sec.14(1)(a) - for carrying out repairs, of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [for short, 'the Act'].

(3.) ASSAILING the concurrent findings of Courts below, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has submitted that the bonafide requirement was not properly considered by the authorities. It was further submitted that from September, 1994, rent was sent by money order and landlord has received the same and there is no wilful default. Arguing further, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that landlord has already shifted his residence and hence, ground on which Petition was filed no longer subsist and in view of subsequent event, Order of eviction is to be reversed. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions " 1996(II)CTC 78 " Narasimharao Vs.Nasimuddin Ahmed; 2001(4)CTC 371 " Janakiraman Vs. Radhakrishnan; 1997(III)CTC 339 " Sethuraman Vs.Nagalakshmi and another; 1998(I)CTC 729 " Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores Vs. Srinivasaiah.