JUDGMENT.- The revision petitioner is the landlord. He filed H.R.C. No. 1297 of 1972 against the respondents for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under section 10 (3) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in respect of a portion at Door No. 100, Godown Street, Madras - 1. The contention of the petitioner herein that the respondents are only licensees who got into the portion paying Rs. 8,000 for a period of eleven months was given up even at the time of filing the eviction petition owing to the fact that the respondents in their reply notice took the stand that they are only licensees under the petitioner. Treating the respondents as tenants, the petitioner filed the eviction petition, as stated above. After terminating the tenancy by giving one month’s notice ending with 30th April, 1972, alleging that he bona fide required the portion under the occupation of the respondents for his additional accornmodation, the petitioner filed the eviction petition. The respondents in their counter statement objected to the stand of the petitioner herein treating them as his tenants, stating that inasmuch as the petitioner has stated that the respondents are only licensees, the petitioner should not have unilaterally converted the licences into one of lease. Nevertheless the respondents throughout their counter statement put forth their defence as if they are tenants. The respondents further contended that there is lack of bona fides in the requirement of the portion for additional accommodation, that the tenancy is an oral one and as such the termination notice issued by the petitioner is defective and that the petitioner himself being the chief tenant, cannot have the benefit of section 10 (3) ©.

2. The Rent Controller, after elaborately discussing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the respondents herein are tenants under the petitioner, that the tenancy is a monthly one, that the termination of the tenancy is valid that the requirement of the petitioner of the portion for additional accommodation is bona fide and that the respondents must vacate and deliver vacant possession of the portion to the petitioner. The Rent Controller gave a month’s notice for vacating and delivering vacant possession to the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the respondents preferred an appeal to the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, who is the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority the respondents filed an affidavit stating that as per G.O. Ms. No. 1998, dated 12th August, 1974 the building in question has been exempted from the Rent Control Act and that as such the eviction proceeding must stand dismissed. Along with the said affidavit the respondents also filed documents to prove that the building in question is a Muslim trust property. The petitioner filed a counter before the Appellate Authority stating that the case trust property is a belated one, that the suit premises is not affected by the said Government Order, that the respondents cannot get any benefit under the said Government Order, that the petitioner is entitled to pursue the appeal and execute the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and that in any event the Government Order will not affect the appeal before the Appellate Authority.

4. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, observing that in view of the Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Government on 21st August, 1974 exempting the building from the operation of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the eviction petition was not maintainable. Nevertheless the Appellate Authority upheld the finding of bona fide requirement of the petitioner for additional accommodation.

5. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, the landlord has preferred the above revision petition.

6. Thiru Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, contended that the petitioner filed the eviction p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document