M. RAMALINGAM Vs. KOTHANDARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is by the landlord who sought to evict the respondent -tenant, on the following allegations : The petitioner resides in one portion of the suit house consisting of three rooms and koodam in the front block o the ground floor. His family consists of himself, his wife, two married sons with their wives and two grand -children by the second son. For such a very large family and its growing needs the present accommodation is very inadequate and the family needs additional accommodation. The rear portion of the ground floor is unsuited for the needs of my client and his family. He desires to occupy the portion tenanted by the respondent which consists of two rooms and two verandahs in the rear block of the upstairs portion as well as the rest of the upstairs portion in the occupation of the other tenant, Purashothaman, which consists of two rooms and two varandahs in the front block of the upstairs portion. The petitioner submits that the upstairs portion alone is airy and well ventilated The petitioner desires these benefits for the members of the family.

(2.) As set out above, the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in occupation of two verandahs on a monthly rent of Rs. 55 according to the English Calendar. The comparative hardship which will result by reason of the petition being not ordered will be greatly in favour of the petitioner rather than the respondent. More hardship will be caused to the petitioner if he does not get the additional accommodation.

(3.) The respondent is not employed in any essential service and the suit building is not exempt from any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.