RAGURAMAN Vs. A S KUMARESA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision petition, which is directed against the order of the appellate authority, pondicherry, evicting the petitioner from the premises in his occupation, on an application filed by the respondents herein under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 (Act 5 of 1969) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended by the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment) Act, 1980, (Act 8 of 1980 ). THE 1st respondent herein is the owner of the building and the 2nd respondent is his son. According to the case of the respondents, in 1980 the property bearing door No. 61 Clave Subbaraya Chetty Street, Pondicherry, was let out to the petitioner for residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 250. In or about 1985, the petitioner is stated to have used the premises for non-residential purposes and on protests beings raised by the respondents, the petitioner promised to vacate the premises, but he did not do so. With reference to the different user of the premises let out to the petitioner, the respondents reserved their right to proceed against the petitioner for eviction to that ground. THE respondents further stated that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner is required for occupation by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent was living in the house of the wife of the 1st respondent and misunderstandings has arisen between the wives of the 1st and the 2nd respondent making it impossible for the 2nd respondent and his wife to live peacefully with the wife of the 1st respondent and under those circumstances, in order to restore harmony in the family and to enable the 2nd respondent to lead a peaceful life in a separate residence, the respondents required the accommodation under the occupation of the petitioner. Stating that neither the 1st respondent nor even the 2nd respondent is in occupation of any residential house of their own in Pondicherry , they filed H. R. C. O. P. No. 57 of 1987 before the Rent Controller (District munsif) Pondicherry, proving for an order of eviction against the petitioner.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the petitioner, while denying that the premises let out to him has been put to a different user, he disputed the quarrels between the wives of the 1st and the 2nd respondents and the arising of the misunderstandings and stated that the 2nd respondent was in management of the entire properties and, therefore the wife of the 1st respondent very much needed the care and custody of the family of the 2nd respondent, and it was on account of this, the upper portion of the premises had been let out to a third party. The claim of the 2nd respondent that he had no other house of his own was denied and the demand by the respondents for owner's occupation was characterised as contrary of law. The petitioner also put forth the plea that the respondents desired to evict the petitioner with a view to lease it out for a higher rent. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application for eviction.

(3.) LASTLY, learned counsel for the petitioner faintly contended that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner is a non-residential premises and that the respondents cannot seek an order of eviction on the ground that the building is required for residential user, as that would violate section 21 of the Act. This argument is misconceived, for, section 21 of the Act provides for conversion of a residential building into a nonresidential building, except with the permission in writing of the controller. If, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the building in the occupation of the petitioner is a non-residential building, the conversion thereof into a residential building, would not fall within the scope of Sec. 21 of the Act at all However, it may be pointed out that even in the application for eviction, the respondents have clearly stated that the premises had been let out in 1980 to the petitioner for residential purpose and that in 1985, the petitioner put the premises to a different user. With reference to this, the stand of the petitioner in his counter was that there was no different user of the premises at all. That would mean that the petitioner continued to use the premises for residential purposes and therefore, no exception could be taken by the petitioner to an order of eviction prayed for by the respondents on the ground that the premises is required for residential purposes. This argument also deserves to be rejected. No other point was urged. Consequently, the Civil Revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.