SELVARAJ Vs. K MUMTAZ BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above civil revision petition is by the tenant and is directed against the order of eviction passed on him by both the Courts below on the ground of wilful default in the payment of real and for affording additional accommodation to the landladies.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present revision briefly are as follows : Eviction proceedings relate to that portion of door No. 196 in Market Road, Arni, which is in the occupation of the petitioner and in which he is running a hotel. The premises belonged to the respondents-landladies, who sought eviction against the petitioner under Ss.10(2)(1)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the averment that the petitioner committed wilful default in the payment of rent from 21-3-1981 to 1-12-1981 and also that they needed the premises as additional accommodation f or the business run by their husbands under the name and style of M.M. Electricals in the back portion of the same door number. On the ground of wilful default, it was averred that the respondents purchased the property on 21-3-1981, and soon after sent Ex. B-1 notice to the petitioner asking him to pay the arrears of rent and also to hand over possession since the same was needed for them, that though the petitioner received Ex. B-1 notice, he did not pay rent; nor did he choose to give any reply, that, therefore, the respondents on 23-7-1981, sent another notice under Ex. B-2 to which the petitioner sent a reply under Ex. A-7 admitting the receipt of the earlier notice under Ex. B-1 and that in spite of the notices and repeated requests the petitioner neither paid the rent nor chose to vacate and that, therefore, the respondents were forced to file R.C.O.P. 32 of 1981 seeking eviction of the petitioner on both the grounds and after the above petition was filed, the petitioner paid the rent in lump sum to the respondents' counsel and that therefore, there had been wilful default, from 21-3-1981 to 1-12-1981. On the ground of additional accommodation, it was averred that the portion of door No. 196 wherein the respondents' husbands were carrying on business was insufficient for their legitimate needs and they were not able to stock their goods in the premises, and that, therefore, the petition premises were needed by way of additional accommodation.

(3.) The petitioner resisted the above action contending that when he received Ex. B-1 notice, he sent the accrued rent to the previous landlord, Nagendra Jain, by money order and also sent him a notice under Ex. B-3, that Nagendra Jain refused to receive the money order and thereafter, the petitioner had the rent deposited in Indian Overseas Bank, which facts were mentioned in the reply he sent under Ex. A-7 to the respondents and that after the filing of R.C.O.P. 32 of 1981, the amounts so deposited in the Indian Overseas Bank were withdrawn and paid to the respondents' counsel. Regarding additional accommodation, the petitioner contended that the demand was mala fide and there was no real need at all for the husbands of the respondents and that, since he had been in the premises for forty years and more, the relative hardship that would be caused to him was more than the benefit that could 1 possibly accrue to the husbands of the respondents.