Judgment- The tenant is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent herein, who is the landlord, filed an eviction petition under sections 10(3) (a) (i) and 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960. The respondent here in averred in the eviction petition that he has no other residential house in the City of Madras, that he filed an eviction petition against all the tenants in the premises including the respondent, that the eviction petition against the tenant herein, was dismissed as the tenant claimed to be entitled to the protection under section 10 (4) (i) of the Act, that the landlord then moved the Government under section 29 of the Act and got exemption with regard to the benefit of section 10 (4) (i) of the Act and that since the tenant did not vacate, the landlord, after giving lawyer’s notice, filed the eviction petition. The landlord has further averred that since he wanted the whole of the premises for his own occupation, he has kept the portions that had fallen vacant under lock and key as it is not suitable or sufficient.

2. The tenant, as the respondent in the eviction petition, contended that the order in H.R.C.No.395 of 1968 is a bar for the present eviction petition, that there is no bona fides in the landlord’s petition for eviction, that the downstairs portion that has fallen vacant is sufficient for the landlord to occupy, that the inconvenience that will be caused to the tenant will be much more than to the landlord if eviction is ordered and that the notice of termination does not conform to the statutory requirements.

3. The Rent Controller, observing that the landlord is not living in. his own house and residing in a rented house and that the landlord’s requirement is bonafide, ordered eviction giving three months’ time to the tenant to vacate.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal to the IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras who is the appellate authority. The appellate authority took up for consideration as to whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and that whether the present application is barred under section 19 of the Act. The Court below also took up for consideration as to whether the notice to-quit is valid. The lower appellate Court, after observing that the prior finding as regards the bona fides of the requirement by the landlord is quite unnecessary for the disposal of the application inasmuch as that application was dismissed under section 10 (4) of the Act, held that the present application is not hit by section 19 of the Act. The lower appellate Court also found that there is bona fides in the requirement of the landlord to occupy the building in question for his own use and that the petition under section 10 (3) (a) (i) is maintainable.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Court below, the tenant has preferred the above civil revision petition. Mr. Viswanatha. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner urged all tne-points raised before the Courts below. As regards the bona fides, both the Courts below have concurrently found that the requirement of the landlord is bona-fide. It is clear from the facts of the case that the respondent herein purchased the property for the purpose of occupying it by himself and that he was not able to occupy the same, inasmuch as the petitioner alone has not vacated the upstairs portion of the building even though other tenants were evicted from the suit premises. It is also clear from the facts of the case that unless all the portions are vacated, it is not possible for the landlord to occupy the house. Hence I am of the view that there is absolutely no impropriety, illegality or irregularity in the finding of the Courts below as regards the’ bona fide requirement of the landlord and also as regards the finding that the petition under section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act will lie in this case.

6. The next question which was vehemently urged by M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document