SHAJEHAN SAHEB Vs. YUKUB KHAN SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment and Order of the District Judge's Court, Chittoor, made under section 12-B of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The facts leading up to this Revision may be briefly noticed. The petitioner in this Revision is the tenant of the respondent in respect of a portion of a house belonging to the respondent bearing Door No. 181/11 in what is known as the ' Invalid Lines ' in Chittoor town. The portion of the building in the possession of the petitioner was let out to him some four or five years prior to the petition, by the respondent, for the purpose of the petitioner carrying on the business in the manufacture of beedies. In the remaining portion of the house, the respondent himself resided with his family, which consisted of his two wives and eight children.

(2.) The respondent filed a petition H.R.C. No. 16 of 1958 before the Rent Controller Chittoor, on 7th March, 1958, for evicting the petitioner under section 7 of the Act. The grounds on which the petition was sought to be supported are: (1) that the petitioner had wilfully defaulted in the payment of rent and on the date of the petition was in arrears of rent for the months of December, 1957 and January, 1958 ; (2) that the respondent is a man of a large family comprising of two wives and eight children, that the family had grown since the time the premises was let to the petitioner, that the respondent was unable to keep his wives and children in the portion of the house occupied by him and that therefore he wanted the premises occupied by the petitioner. It is not disputed that the portion of the house in the possession of the petitioner consisted of one room and a verandah, while the rest of the house consisted of two fairly large rooms and a verandah and kitchen, etc. The petitioner contended in his counter that there is no truth in the allegation that the portion of the house in the possession of the respondent was insufficient for his family, that it was not true that he was in arrears of rent or that he committed wilful default in the payment of the same ; instead, he contended that he was very regular in the payment of rent and never committed any default. He further raised the question that he was doing business in the premises ard that therefore, the letting out of the portion in his possession was for non-residential purposes and that therefore, that portion of the building should be regarded as a non-residential building and that he would suffer great hardship if he was disturbed.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller, who enquired into the matter, came to the conclusion that there was wilful default in the payment of rent by the petitioner, and that the respondent is in need of additional accommodation, and accordingly he ordered eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. Against this judgment and order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, to whom the appeal lay under the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal, examined the case in its bearings and came to the conclusion that there was no proof in the case that the petitioner committed wilful default in the payment of rent, that there was no conscious violation or supine indifference on the part of the petitioner in the payment of rent, and therefore even if there was any default in the payment of rent, it could not have been wilful. In doing so, he followed a decision of this Court in Amura Rathniah v. Mysore Kasamma, (1958)1 An. W.R. 518.