M VELU Vs. JAYALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18/60, against the order dated 27.08.2008 in RCA.No,315 of 2001 passed by the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2001 in RCOP.No,2026 of 1997 on the file of the XVI Judge (XV court incharge), Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)The Judgment in RCA.No,315 of 2001 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which had arisen out of the order in RCOP.No,2026 of 1997 on the file of the XVI Judge, (incharge of XV Judge), Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is under challenge in this revision. The tenant in RCOP.No,2026 of 1997 is the revision petitioner herein. RCOP.No,2026 of 1997 was filed by the landlady under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE brief facts in RCOP relevant for the purpose of deciding this Revision are as follows:-2(a) THE petition scheduled premises bearing Door No.18, Perumal Koil Street, 4th Lane, Chennai, belongs to the landlady/petitioner. THE respondent is the tenant occupying a non-residential portion on the front side of the ground floor, which consist of two rooms. THE property is facing north, on the western side of the property, the respondent is carrying on business, on the eastern side of the property, the petitioner's sons namely Vijay and Shankar are carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Jayalakshmi polishing Works, in between the two portions the entrance for the house is situated.2(b) THE petitioner's younger son Shankar is going to get married and he has to carry on business on his own bifurcating from his brother Vijay the portion under the occupation of the respondent/tenant is required for the petitioner's son's own occupation and by explaining the above said facts the petitioner herein requested the respondent/tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the portion under this occupation. Finding the genuineness and the bonafide requirement of the petitioner the respondent agreed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the portion under his occupation. THEreafter, to the shock and surprise of the landlady, the respondent/tenant has sent a draft for a sum of Rs.10,000/- through his advocate as if the petitioner has demanded enhanced advance amount of Rs.10,000/-. For the said notice sent by the respondent, the petitioner has sent a reply through her lawyer. After receipt of the reply the respondent undertook to vacate and handover the possession of the petition scheduled premises within six months. THE portion under the occupation of the respondent/tenant is required bonefidely for the own use and occupation of the petitioner's son since the business of the petitioner's son has developed and the petitioner's son by name Shankar is going to get married. So the requirement of the petitioner is very much bonafide and as such the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of owner's occupation. 2(c) THE petitioner is occupying the first floor portion of the petition scheduled premises for her residential purpose. THE shop portion under the occupation of the respondent/tenant is required for her/landlady in any by way of additional accommodation for her son's business purpose. By ordering eviction the respondent would not be put to any hardship, but on the other hand if the eviction is not ordered, the petitioner would be put to very great hardship and loss, the hardship suffered by the petitioner/landlady wold outweigh the hardship of the respondent/tenant. One another tenant by name Hiralal who is in occupation of two rooms behind the shop portion of the respondent/tenant was requested by the petitioner/landlady to vacate and by finding the bonafide need of petitioner's own use and occupation, the said Hiralal has also consented to vacate the portion under his occupation. 2(d) THE petitioner is residing in the first floor of the premises along with her husband and their sons. Her two sons got married and they are living with her in the first floor portion her third son by name Shankar who is going to get married very soon. Since the portion under her occupation is not sufficient for accommodation of her all the three sons and since the business which is carried on by her sons developed, the portion under the occupation of respondent as well the portion under the occupation of Hiralal is required by the landlady. THE portion under the occupation of Mr.Hiralal, namely two rooms though used as non-residential portion as on today is in the nature of residential portion and as it could be occupied by the petitioner's sons for his residential purpose, if vacated as agreed by Hiralal. THE portion under the occupation of the respondent is bonafide required for her son Shankar for carrying on business separately by bifurcating from his elder brother Vijay. Since he is going to get married, as such the requirement of the petitioner of the portion under the occupation of the respondent is very much required for the own use of her son's occupation and therefore the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of owner's occupation. 2(e) Moreover the petitioner does not own any other building in the city of Chennai and as such she is entitled to get eviction of the respondent for her son's own use and occupation of the portion under the use and occupation of the respondent/tenant. Hence, the petition.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and considered their respective submissions.