V. BICHAWA Vs. M. VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition under the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 comes before this Bench on a reference made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

(2.) When the matter came before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice originally, reliance was placed on a decision of Kailasam, J. (as he then was) in Shanmugha Appah v/s. Abdul Hameed : (1973) 1 M.L.J. 241 as well as an unreported judgment of the same learned Judge in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 73, 100 and 101 of 1971 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 11248 and 11809 of 1971 Syed Ibrahim v/s. Sudarsan, (1972) T.L.N.J. 259, judgment, dated 21st March, 1972. The learned Chief Justice was not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent in the civil revision petition, based on the said judgments, and hence the reference to this Court.

(3.) Before we proceed to deal with the question of law, on the basis of which this civil revision petition has been referred to a Bench, we shall refer to the facts of this case. The Petitioner herein filed a petition, House Rent Case No. 1023 of 1976, against the Respondent herein before the Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction of the Respondent under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the Petitioner herein required the premises for the immediate purpose of demolition and re -construction. The Respondent herein resisted the petition putting forward the contention that the requirement of the Petitioner was not bona fide. However, during the course of the hearing of the petition, he produced exhibit R -6, a registration copy of the sale deed under which the property in question was purchased for the purpose of putting forward the contention that the Petitioner herein was not the owner of the premises and, if at all, he could only be an agent of the owner and that consequently he had no right to maintain the present petition. The Rent Controller, while finding that the requirement of the Petitioner was bona fide, held that the evidence of P.W. 1 that the petition -property was purchased benami in the name of his wife remained unchallenged. He also referred to the evidence of the Respondent himself that he did not make any enquiry with regard to the fact as to, who was the real owner of the Petitioner -building, that he took the lease of the Petitioner -building only from the Petitioner and that he was paying the rent to the Petitioner, as the other tenants were paying rent to the Petitioner. In view of this, the Rent Controller held that the petition was maintainable and, therefore, directed the eviction of the Respondent herein.