R M PERIYASAMY @ RAJA Vs. V JAYA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decreetal order, dated 02.03.2015, passed in R.C.A.No.21 of 2014 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Madurai, reversing the order and decreetal order, dated 11.02.2014, passed in R.C.O.P.No.167 of 2009, by the learned Additional Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif) Madurai Town.

(2.) The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.167 of 2009 before the Additional District Munsif Court (Additional Rent Controller), Madurai Town, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he requires the said building for his own occupation. According to the respondent, he is residing with his wife in first floor and he let out the ground floor to the petitioner for non- residential purpose. The respondent and his wife are aged persons and due to age related ailments, they are finding it very difficult to climb stairs to reach the first floor. The respondent's son is married and the first floor is not sufficient for their occupation. According to the respondent, during April 1993, the respondent and the petitioner entered into a registered Tenancy Agreement for four years and the monthly rent is fixed at Rs.1,500/- and the present monthly rent is Rs.2,500/- till date. The ground floor portion has two Halls, two Rooms with Kitchen, Veranda and Toilet. The ground floor portion will be more sufficient and convenient for the petitioner and his family members. For the above reasons, the respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.167 of 2009 for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation.

(3.) The petitioner filed counter statement and denied the various averments made by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the ground floor was let out to him for non-residential purpose and he was running a Jaggery business on commission basis. The respondent and his wife are hale and healthy and they tried to take advantage of their age to evict the petitioner. The respondent's son is working in Abroad. The respondent demanded Rs.10,000/- per month as rent. The petitioner did not agree for the same. In view of the same, the respondent has filed the present petition with mala fide intention.