UAMRAJ Vs. SHAH POOSAJI SAMRATHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been directed against the judgment in RCA.No,864 of 2000 on the file of the Court of VIIth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which had arisen out of the order passed in RCOP.No,869 of 1998 on the file of the Court of XVth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The landlord / respondent herein had filed the said RCOP under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE brief averments in the petition are that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner / landlord in the premises bearing Door No,58, Perumal Mudali Street, Chennai, for a monthly rent of Rs.655/-. THE tenancy is for non-residential purpose. THE tenant had committed default in payment of rent from 01.02.1997. THE petitioner requires the petition scheduled building for his son who has no other place for conducting or starting new business of fancy items. Hence, the landlord / petitioner requires the building for his son's business of fancy items. THE requirements of the petitioner is bonafide and genuine.

(3.) BEFORE this Court the tenant had filed M.P.No,735 of 2008 in CRP.NPD.No,717 of 2006 taking a new plea that the landlord and his son became entitled to a share in Door No,65, Perumal Mudali Street, Chennai, which was purchased by the petitioner's / landlord's wife alongwith three others and that pending RCA she died and hence, the both the petitioner and his son are entitled to inherit the said property and they are co-owners and entitled to 1/8 share each in the said property. To show the physical features of the property at request of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, a Commissioner was appointed, who had visited the property and filed her report and plan. The photographs enclosed with the Commission's report will go to show that the building in Door No,65, Perumal Mudali Street, Chennai, is only under construction and the same is lying vacant. Even though the petitioner / landlord and his son are entitled to any share in Door No,65, Perumal Mudali Street, Chennai, it is to be proved that either the landlord or his son is in occupation of Door NO.65, Perumal Mudali Street, Chennai, to claim that the landlord is not entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act reads as follows:-