A. AMIRTHARAJ Vs. DR. (MRS.) K. INAYATH ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO doubt, Mr. Subramania Iyer has raised an interesting question, in his Civil Revision Petition, whether Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is applicable to the facts of this case. The respondent was a doctor. She was practising and she needed a clinic for her own use but she was residing in a rented premises. Therefore, she filed H.R.C. No. 4843 of 1963 in the Court of the Rent Controller seeking for eviction of the petitioner under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act as it then stood. The respondent was not successful both before the Rent Controller as well as before the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE present petition (H.R.C. No. 1080 of 1973) has been filed by the respondent in 1973, about ten years later. Her case was that she was unable to exercise her profession as a doctor and that she was unable to Continue in the rented premises along with her husband and children who are grown up and who find it very difficult to continue their occupation in the rented premises. She would also mention an additional factor that her son has become a doctor and that he is occupying the downstairs in the rented premises, which makes it impossible for her in her old age to live with her husband and the other members of the family in the upstairs. On this different state of affairs and 'facts, she filed the present petition ten years after she lost the earlier petition filed in 1963, in which she had asked the portion in the occupation of the petitioner for her own use and occupation.

(3.) BOTH the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority held against the tenant Hence the civil revision petition.