S EKANATHAN Vs. D BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.(Civil Revision Petition filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.02.2008 made in R.C.A.No.677 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the Order and Decree, dated 30.06.2003 made in R.C.O.P.No.1230 of 2000 on the file of the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the Order, dated 18.02.2008 made in R.C.A.No.677 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the Order and Decretal Order, dated 30.06.2003 made in R.C.O.P.No.1230 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller / XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner in the R.C.O.P, Balwant Singh was the original owner of the property and he filed the R.C.O.P for eviction of the tenant, the revision petitioner herein, under Section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The learned Rent Controller, ordered eviction, based on the evidence and the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel. Aggrieved by which, the revision petitioner / tenant preferred appeal in R.C.A.No.677 of 2003. During the pendency of the R.C.A, Balwant Singh (landlord) died. His Legal Representatives, respondents 1 to 9 were brought on record, as per procedure. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, by Judgment, dated 18.02.2008 has confirmed the order of eviction recorded by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by which, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the revision petitioner / tenant.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the Rent Control Original Petition was filed under Section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in the Original Petition, the petitioner has averred that he was about 83 years old running hotel business in a rented premises at NSC Bose Road, Chennai-1, which is in-sufficient, as the same is measuring about 50 sq.ft and the petitioner finds it very difficult to carryon his business in the small rented premises. He has further averred that he requires the petition mentioned premises under the occupation of the respondent for the bonafide purpose of carrying on hotel business along with his son Inderjit Singh.