MAHADEVI Vs. GOUTHAM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by the landlady challenging the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejecting her claim for eviction of the respondent who is a tenant of the premises in question at Rs.80 per month.

(2.) THE premises in question are shop premises. THE landlady became the owner of the shop in question as a result of a settlement made by her mother with effect from 10.1.1977. She filed a petition for eviction expressly stating that her husband was having a hair dressing saloon in a rented shop for which he was paying a rent of Rs.175 per month, and she required the premises for the purpose of setting up of her husband's business in her own place and, therefore, for her own use and occupation. According to her, she did not possess any other building of her own within the City of Madras. By way of abundant caution, she also pleaded in her petition that she was residing in a hut in the same premises which bore the same Corporation door number, and, therefore, she was also making a claim by way of additional accommodation to avoid any technical pleas that may be raised by the respondent.

(3.) THE only two witnesses examined at the trial of the petition were the husband of the landlady and the tenant. THE Rent Controller found that the document of lease, Ex.A7 was an unregistered document and the tenant could not, therefore, contend that a lease for five years was granted to him. He also found that it was open to the landlady to ask for eviction of the tenant for the purpose of the business of her husband provided of course that her claim was bona fide. On the question of bona fides, the Rent Controller, however, took the view that the petition filed by the landlady did not mention the fact that the rent of the premises in the occupation of her husband was enhanced from Rs.65 to Rs.175 per month and that the landlady had not come to court with clean hands. This conclusion he reached, because, in Ex.P5 which was a notice given on behalf of the landlady, it was only stated that the landlady required the shop portion for her own use and occupation but that it was not stated for whose occupation, the demised portion was required. He also referred to the fact that the husband had totally denied the execution of the lease agreement in favour of the tenant and that the husband was unwilling to answer questions as to the correspondence - (Exs.R2 to R6) which took place between the landlady and the tenant. Relying on these facts, the Rent Controller took the view that P.W.1 was purposely suppressing certain material facts in order to succeed in the petition. Thus he held that the claim of the landlady was not bona fide. With regard to the case under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act, he held that the landlady did not seek any relief under that provision. Accordingly, he dismissed the petition.