G. KUTHABAKSH Vs. A.P. SAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is allowed on the simple ground that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have not disposed of the petition granting relief to the Landlord, bearing in mind the obligation of the statutory authorities to give a definite finding about the bona fides of the landlord. No doubt the petition has been ordered, consequent to the default committed by the tenant and I could see sufficient procrastination in his attitude towards the proceedings. It cannot be said that the tenant has not delayed the disposal of the petition. There have been sufficient materials to hold that he has prevented early consideration of the matter by both the authorities. Whatever be his attitude, when the petition is allowed due to default committed by the tenant, and when it arises under the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, there is statutory obligation on the statutory authorities to give a finding about the bona fide requirements of the landlord, even though the petition may be disposed of ex parte. In this case, there is no reference made by the appellate authority about the bona fide requirements of the landlord, even though the petition may be disposed of ex parte. In this case, there is no reference made by the appellate authority about the bona fides of the claim in the petition for eviction.

(2.) IN view of the above, the civil revision -petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Rent Controller who shall dispose of the matter expeditiously, bearing in mind that has been laid down by the Supreme Court, and the order should be passed on the evidence on record and it should give satisfactory reasons for the conclusion arrived at by him. Of Course, the tenant must be extended as opportunity to defend himself. The civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.