M MURUGAMMAL Vs. SAKUNTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the judgment in RCA.No.400 of 2004 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which had arisen out of the order in RCOP.No.2070 of 2002 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) THE said RCOP.No.2070 of 2002 was filed by the learned landlady under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). THE short facts stated in the petition are that the respondent is a tenant and that she had committed wilful default in payment of rent from the month of March-2002 to September-2002 and that the landlady's son by name Padmanaban is residing at Door No.25, (New No.45) Rajagopal Street, Chintadripet, Chennai-2 on rental basis and now the landlady's son finds it difficult to live at Door No.25, (New. No.45), Rajagopal Street, Chintadripet, Chennai-2. Hence, the landlady / petitioner in RCOP.NO.2070 of 2002 required the petition scheduled building for the use and occupation of her son and his family.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act was filed by the landlady on the ground that she requires the petition scheduled building for the purpose of her son Padmanabhan's occupation with his family since he was residing in a rented house at Door No.25 (New No.45), Rajagopal Street, Chintadripet, Chennai-2. To substantiate this contention, the landlady had relied on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 " documents. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would brought to the notice of this Court that Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.12 are all subsequent to the date of filing of the petition and that they are the documents of the year 2003, whereas RCOP was filed in the year 2002.