V K JAYALAKSHMI Vs. M S MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in r. C. O. P. No. 3335 ofl986 in the file of the 11th Small Causes Judge (Rent controller), Madras and the respondent in R. C. A. No. 5 of 1990 on the file of the 8th Small Causes Judge (Appellate Authority), Madras . THE respondents 1 and 2 are the petitioners in the rent control proceedings (landladies) and the appellants before the appellate authority. In this order, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the landladies and the tenant respectively.

(2.) I heard Mr. N. Krishna Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and though the respondents had been served, yet they have not chosen either to engage a counsel to defend then here-or they were present before court. Under the these circumstances, this revision is disposed of on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and after perusing the records.

(3.) LET me now decide whether the tenancy is for residential or non-residential purpose. It has been elaborately contended by mr. N. Krishna Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the tenancy is for non-residential purpose and therefore the landladies application for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation treating the tenancy as residential tenancy is legally impermissible. Therefore, if that submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is found to be correct, then the requirement for owner's occupation of the residential building has to be necessarily rejected. There is no dispute that the tenancy commenced from 15. 2. 1981. The tenant was inducted into possession by dr. Kanthamani. The tenant is also a Doctor by profession. Dr. Kanthamani is non-else than the mother-in-law of the first landlady and the grandmother of the second landlady. There is a document dated 18. 2. 1981 which is marked in this case as Ex. P-12 (copy) and Ex. R-1 (Original ). This document evidences the rent per month. Ex. P-12 contains an endorsement signed by one Prakash for and on behalf of the tenant for having received the key with one fan and all bathroom fittings intact. There is no whisper at all in this document about the nature of the tenancy namely, whether it is for residential or non-residential purpose. Dr. Kanthamani is proved to have died on 8. 5. 1986. It appears that dr. Kanthamani had negotiated with the tenant before the premises was let out. Unfortunately Dr. Kanthamani is not alive. But during her life time, a lawyer's notice dated 25. 1. 1984 was issued on behalf of Dr. Kanthamani to the tenant. This notice is marked as Ex. P-1 and the acknowledgement due is marked as ex. P-2. In this notice it is mentioned that the tenancy is for residential purposes. The receipt of this notice is not denied by the tenant when she gave evidence. She would also state that she does not remember whether she sent a reply to Ex. P-1 or not. This notice was issued at a time when Dr. Kanthamani was alive. If really the statement made in this notice regarding the nature of tenancy is incorrect, then the immediate reaction of the tenant, especially when she is a Doctor by profession, should have sent a reply asserting the correct position. Therefore in the absence of any such reply on the lines indicated above, I am of the opinion that the contents of Ex. P-1 can safely be taken into account to decide the nature of tenancy as one for residential purpose only and not for any other purpose.