M SHANMUGAM Vs. KUPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant in R. C. A. No. 3 of 1984 on the file of the appellate authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Salem is the petitioner in this revision petition and the landlady is the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent/landlady filed the petition in r. C. O. P. No. 109 of 1980 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District munsif), Salem for eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the petition premises on the ground that he is occupying a portion of the petition premises bearing door No. 6-A, that the portion in the possession of the respondent is Door nos. 6-B, that the said portion is required by her as an additional accommodation and that the portion which is already in her possession is not sufficient for accommodating her members of the family.

(3.) THE evidence in this case clearly shows that the petition premises as well as the portion occupied by the landlady are parts of the same building structurally and they are divided by a party-wall. THErefore, merely because they bear separate door numbers or assessed separately is not a ground to hold that they are two separate buildings in its strict sense of the term. THEy form one unit of the building under the same roof and in such a case, the scope of S. 10 (3) (c) of the Act cannot be narrowed down by adopting such a technical interpretation. THE nature of the building can be tested by the fact whether both the portions can be used as one unit to meet the needs of the landlady. Considering these aspects, the appellate authority has rightly come to the conclusion that it is only a part of the building and, therefore, s. 10 (3) (c) of the Act is attracted. I do not find any infirmity in the said findings.