MASILAMANI Vs. V BALIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is by the tenant, who has suffered an order of eviction before the authorities below.

(2.) THE respondent sought eviction on the grounds of wilful default and requirement for own occupation for residential purpose. THE rent Controller negatived the ground of wilful default and ordered eviction on the ground of requirement for own occupation. THE Appellate Authority confirmed the said order. THE tenant filed C. R. P. No. 1849 of 1984 in this Court. By that time, another tenant against whom a similar eviction petition was filed at the same time by the respondent had vacated and that portion was occupied by the respondent herein. It was argued in that Revision Petition that the portion occupied by the respondent was sufficient for his purposes and the bona fide of the requirement ceased to exist. Sathar Sayeed, J. , accepted that contention and by his order on 3-1-1986 remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority with the following observation: " I am of the view, considering the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the said tenant Selvaraj has vacated a portion of the premises, it is just and reasonable that a finding has to be given by the appellate authority as to whether the portion, which fall vacant, is sufficient and suitable for the landlord for his own use and occupation. It is on this ground alone, the matter is remitted to the appellate authority (VI judge Court of Small Causes, Madras) to find out the requirement of the landlord, namely, whether the vacated portion by Selvaraj is sufficient for the landlords own use and occupation. This is the only point that was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. "

(3.) YET another contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has wrongly thrown the burden on the tenant to prove that the landlord owns another building of his own in the city. It is argued that it is only for the landlord to prove that he does not own any other building. In the present case, the landlord has entered the witness box and deposed that he does not own any other building except the petition-premises. No Court can expect the landlord to produce more evidence to prove the negative. On the other hand, if the landlord had owned another building, it would have been very easy for the tenant to produce documentary proof therefor. The burden is rightly cast on the tenant to prove the positive fact of landlord owning another building.