Judgment.- An interesting question has arisen in this civil revision petition. One Rokkaiya Ammal was the owner of a property a portion of which was let out to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is actually in occupation of a thatched bunk of an extent 5 x 4. The landlady filed an application under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground that the petitioner had committed wilful default and also on the ground that she wanted the leased premises for her husband’s business of making articles from zinc and iron sheets. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on both the grounds. The appellate authority was not convinced that there was wilful default in the payment of rent, but he was, however, satisfied that the landlady was entitled to the possession of the building for purposes of her husband’s business. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the landlady died and her husband, her son and her daughter were brought on record and the appeal proceeded with the above three persons as her legal representatives and resulted in a decision in their favour. The petitioner-tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document