P.M. KUPPA SAH Vs. RAJARAM SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this civil revision petition is the landlord. He owns premises No. 1 -A, Balakrishna Pillai New Street, Chintadripet, Madras -2. The respondent was 'one of the tenants occupying a portion of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 15. A notice of determination of tenancy was given by the petitioner against three of his tenants, who were by then occupying small portions in the premises. One of the tenants, on the insurance of the notice of determination of tenancy, vacated, and the petitioner put his belongings in that portion, locked it up and kept it with him. Thereafter he filed two petitions against the remaining two tenants, who did not comply with his request for surrender of possession as asked for in his notice of determination of tenancy. H.R.C. No. 793 of 1973 was against the tenant who was in occupation of a portion on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 and H.R.C. No. 794 of 1973 was against the present respondent. He filed the two petitions on the ground that both the tenants had committed wilful default in the payment of rents from November, 1972 to January, 1973. He also sought for the portions in the 'occupation of the two tenants, for his own occupation by way of additional accommodation. This was obviously on the foot that he, was in occupation of a portion of the building which one of the tenants had surrendered after the petitioner had issued the notice of determination of tenancy.

(2.) SO far as the question of wilful default was concerned, it was denied by both the tenants. Their common case was that they did offer the rent, but, as the petitioner demanded enhanced rent, they refused to pay the same. They, however conceded that they did not give any reply to the notice of determination of tenancy issued by the petitioner. According to them, the petition was incompetent under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as the petitioner was residing in a different building and therefore he was not entitled to additional accommodation. They would say that the petitioner could occupy the portions which had' already fallen vacant in the premises and that, as the petitioner's family consisted of himself and his wife, the available vacant portion would be sufficient for him. They would also set out the disadvantages that might be caused to them in the event of their being asked to surrender possession, and contend that the inconveniences that they are likely to suffer would outweigh the advantage to be gained by the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other point, whether the requirement of the premises by the petitioner by way of additional accommodation was bona fide, the Rent Controller found that the petition was maintainable in view of the admissions made by the tenants themselves that there is a portion which has fallen vacant in the premises, and which, is in his possession and which would be sufficient for the occupation, of himself and the members of his family. He believed the landlord when he stated that he was occupying the portion which another tenant had vacated after he issued the notice of determination of tenancy, that he had kept his belongings there and that the other portions in the occupation of the other two tenants, including the respondent herein, by way of additional accommodation was bona fide required by him and that the tenants would not be inconvenienced. He further held that physical occupation by the petitioner of the portion which had fallen vacant was not necessary.