High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings based on evidence

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 26.6.2001, passed in R.C.O.P.No.18/1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, against the judgment dated 31.1.2005 in R.C.A.No.5/2001, on the file of the Sub-Judge, Ponneri.)

The unsuccessful tenant who lost her case before the authorities below is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The respondent herein filed RCOP No.18/1994 under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition property. The respondent/landlady pleaded that she is in need of the petition mentioned property for her own use and occupation and once and for all she wanted to settle at the property. She further stated in the RCOP that she is not owning any other house excepting the petition mentioned property. The revision petitioner herein as tenant resisted the RCOP by contending that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide and the same has been filed to evict her as she did not pay heed to the landlady's demand of Rs.400/- per month as rent. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 26.6.2001 allowed the RCOP against which the revision petitioner filed an appeal in RCA No.5/2001 and the learned Appellate Authority by order dated 31.1.2005 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Challenging the order dated 31.1.05, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submissions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent/landlady did not enter into the witness box and deposed about her bona fide requirement of the petition property. Instead, a power of attorney deposed as P.W.1 on behalf of the respondent/landlady who is not competent to speak about the genuine requirement of the landlady. The learned counsel further submitted that the power of attorney was marked as Ex.P1 before the Rent Controller and in that power of attorney dated 20.2.1995, power was also given to the agent to sell the petition property also, which clearly indicates that there is no bona fide in the requirement of the landlady. The learned counsel further added that the respondent's notices dated 1.4.94 (Ex.P2) and 2.5.94 (Ex.P3) as well as the reply notice dated 31.5.94 (Ex.P5) did not mention anything about the requirement of the premises for owner's occupation but only demanded enhancement in rent which clearly proves that the RCOP is only an after-thought. Learned counsel finally concluded his argument by submitting that the Appellate Authority has not exercised its jurisdiction properly and failed to consider the relevant facts in the proper perspective and mechanically confirmed the order of the Rent Controller.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:-

(1) (2005) 2 SCC 217 (Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd.); and

(2) (2005) 2 SCC 476 (Adil. Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust & others).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady submitted that failure on the part of the landlady to go into the box cannot be taken as a ground for not upholding the claim of bona fide requirement of the petition premises. He further submitted that the power of attorney is competent to give evidence on behalf of the landlady and granting power to sell the petition property will not defeat her claim for filing the RCOP under Sec.10(3)(a)(i)of the Act 18/1960. Insofar as the non-mentioning of the bona fide requirement in the notices sent by the respondent/landlady, the learned counsel submitted that non-mentioning the requirement in the earlier notices will not defeat the claim of the landlady and both the courts below have upheld the bona fide of the landlady's requirement on the basis of the evidence let in and that need not b