S RAMAN Vs. T PAKIRISAMY PATHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by the tenant. The landlord purchased a tiled house, which was occupied by three tenants, two occupying the two moieties of the house and the third one revision petitioner herein occupying a portion of the pial wherein he has installed a petty grocery shop, about 15 years prior to the institution of the proceedings in the year 1983. Soon after the purchase by the present landlord, he instituted eviction proceedings against all the tenants. The other two tenants have vacated the house. The present tenant revision petitioner herein contended that the petition for eviction was not maintainable, since the petition was for owner 's occupation for residential purposes whereas the building was a non-residential one both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority stated that for ascertaining the character of a building whether it is a residential or a non-residential one, one has to take into account the totality of the structure and come to the conclusion which is just and proper under the circumstances. Having set out that principle the authorities below have found that the building occupied by the tenant consisted of a small portion of the pial and that taking into account its size and location it cannot be declared as having acquired independently the character of a non-residential building while the other portions of the structure remained residential. Aggrieved by the abovesaid decisions, the tenant has preferred the present revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner placed before me, two decisions, one of a Bench of this Court in A.V. Vijayaragavelu Chetti In re, (1951)2 M.L.J. 486: 64 L.W. 804 and another decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shaji v. Addl. Dist.Session Allahabad and others, (1977)2 S.C.C. 266. The above two decisions are only to the effect that once a portion of a structure has been let out separately it would be a building within the meaning of the Rent Control Act. There is no quarrel regarding that proposition, but that is of no use to decide the point whether a building is or is not a residential one. In fact, both the authorities have accepted that the premises let out to the tenant was a building and it is only for that reason that they have accepted having jurisdiction to deal with this matter under the Rent Control Act.