AMBROSE Vs. ABDUL RAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who has suffered an order of eviction before the authorities below has preferred this revision petition. Though two grounds were urged for eviction before the Rent Controller, only on ground survives now and it is the ground of requirement for own occupation. THE respondent stated in the petition for eviction that he is residing at No. 102, Mettu St. , Varaganeri, Tiruchi, which is a rented house. According to him, a partition has taken place in the family of the owner of that house and the person to whom it has been allotted in the partition is demanding the respondent to vacate the property. He has stated that he is in dire need of the house. In the counter filed by the petitioner herein, besides the denial of the averments in the petition for eviction, it was stated that it would be inconvenient for the respondent to got to his office from the place where the petition premises are situate. THE Rent controller accepted the evidence of the respondent and disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner, and ordered eviction. On appeal, the respondent filed certain documents as additional evidence in order to prove that the house which he is occupying at present is a rented house, and that it belongs to somebody else. THE appellate authority admitted the additional evidence and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

(2.) IT is argued by learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the authorities below have not considered the question of bona fides of the requirement of the respondent. Learned counsel referred to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Hanteedia Hardware Stores v. Mohanlal sowcar, (1988)2 L. W. I and submitted that the authorities below have proceeded on the footing that it was not necessary to prove bona fides. Learned counsel points out that in so far as S. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act hereinafter referred to as the Act, is concerned, this court has already taken the view that it was necessary to prove bona fides and it was only under S. 10 (3) (a) (iii), this Court had taken a different view, which has now been overruled by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. The contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted on the facts of the case. The appellate authority has considered the question of bona fide requirement and come to the conclusion that the requirement of the respondent is bona fide. The following passage in the judgement of the appellate authority shows that he has considered the evidence relating to the bona fide requirement and given a finding thereon. . . The evidence in this case clearly shows that the landlord does not own any other building except the petition mentioned premises which he had built with the Government loan, that he is now residing in a rented building which does not belong to him and that, he honestly requires the petition mentioned premises for his own occupation. Now the conclusion of the learned Rent Controller about the requirement of the landlord being bona fide, does not appear to be perverse or unreasonable. IT is also the evidence of p. W. I that sentimentally he wants to shift and to move to his own house particularly after his wife had undergone some surgery. IT is also his evidence that as he had built this house with the Government loan he is not entitled to secure accommodation from the Accommodation Controller as per G. O. No. Ms. 980 housing and Urban Development dated 10. 11. 1981. When it is shown that he is now living in a rented house, the mere fact of his not having tried to move to his house for the past 5 years cannot be a ground for concluding that his present requirement is also not bona fide. Apparently the house in which he is now living does not belong to him. There is nothing in the evidence to show that he owns any other house of his own within the Municipality of Golden Rock where the petition mentioned premises is situate or in Tiruchirapalli. IT is his evidence that the house in which he is living is a rented building. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. When these things are clearly established, it can only be held that his requirement is bona fide and that there is really an element of need in his claim. When that is so clearly established the relief of eviction sought for by him has to be granted under S. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act. Thus considered, there is no ground for setting aside the orders of the learned rent Controller, I hold under point No. l, that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in Sitaramayya v. Rajasekhara Reddi, (1951)1 M. LJ. (S. N.) 40, held that a landlord residing in rented building need not prove that he is in danger of being evicted therefrom before he could obtain possession of his own building under the Act.