A ELLIAH DEVAR Vs. D RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN an application filed by the respondent -landlord under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority found, as a fact, that the application was bona fide, that the hardship which might result to the tenant would not outweigh the advantage which the landlord might gain by reason of the order of eviction and that, in the circumstances of the case, it was just and proper that an order of eviction should be made. It is as against this, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(2.) THREE contentions are raised before me, namely:

(3.) AS regards the third contention it revolves on merits. The finding of both the Courts below is that the landlord needed additional accommodation and that the said need was bona fide. The landlord was in the same premises and the tenant was occupying a portion of the downstairs of an extent of 88 sq. ft. The landlord wanted it in order to provide for his expanding family and also incidentally make it convenient for him to do business therein if it is possible. These circumstances were weighed by both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority who came to the conclusion that the hardship which the tenant would be put to in the event of an eviction order being passed will not outweigh the advantage to the landlord. They also found that the tenant could secure easily accommodation for himself and it was also noted that the petitioner's wife, who was an employee in the Corporation, would secure quarters, and that it would conveniently house both the petitioner and his wife. All these circumstances lead to a sure inference that the application was not only bona fide but that comparative hardship which the tenant might suffer is so little and that the benefit of the landlord would secure as a result of the eviction will certainly not outweigh the disadvantage to the tenant. All such circumstances were borne in mind by the statutory authorities. The order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or any error of law or any material irregularity