S GOPAL Vs. T V PARAMASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP (NPD).No.3992 of 2007 is arisen out of the judgment in RCA.No.252 of 2006 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, under which the order passed in RCOP.No.1900 of 2003 by the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, was challenged. RCOP.No.1900 of 2003 on the file of the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, was filed by the landlord/respondent herein under Section 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the RCOP, against which the landlord preferred an appeal in RCA.No.252 of 2006 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Cause, Chennai). The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority while confirming the findings of the learned Rent Controller in respect of the dismissal of RCOP under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act has allowed the appeal under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, which necessitated the tenant to approach this Court by way of CRP.(NPD).No.3992 of 2007.

(2.) UNDER CRP (NPD).No.675 of 2007 the judgment in RCA.No.1382 of 2005 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is challenged. RCA.No.1382 of 2005 had arisen out the order in RCOP.No.1899 of 2003 on the file of the XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which was filed under Section 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller has allowed the RCOP under both the counts and passed an order of eviction giving two months time to vacate and handover vacant possession to the landlord. The appeal RCA.No.1382 of 2005 preferred against the order passed in RCOP.No.1899 of 2003, was dismissed the by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, thereby the orders of the learned Rent Controller was confirmed. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant in RCOP.No.1899 of 2003 has preferred CRP.No.679 of 2007.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on 2001(5) SCC 705 (Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal) would contend that if the landlord had alternative shop in the same building he cannot evict the other tenants on the ground of owner's occupation. THE said appeal had arisen before the Honourable Apex Court under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, wherein the ratio decidendi laid down is that if the landlord requires the building bone fide then he must show that he is in actual need of the building and on the mere whim and fanciful he cannot ask for the eviction against the tenant. THE short facts of the said case is that :