The central legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's bonafide requirement for eviction and the tenant's obligation to follow the proper procedure for depositing rent.

(Revision Petitions filed against the order dated 28.2.2003 made in RCA Nos.15/1999 and 26/1999 on the file of the Sub Judge, Coimbatore confirming the order dated 8.1.1999 and made in R.C.O.P.Nos.17/1996 and 3/1996, on the file of the District Munsif, Mettupalayam.)

Common Order:

These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 28.2.2003 made in RCA Nos.15/1999 and 26/1999 on the file of the Sub Judge, Coimbatore confirming the order dated 8.1.1999 and made in R.C.O.P.Nos.17/1996 and 3/1996, on the file of the District Munsif, Mettupalayam.

I. C.R.P.(NPD) No.604/2003:

2. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/landlord herein filed RCOP No.17/1996 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 from the petition premises on the ground that he requires the premises bonafidely for his own occupation. This eviction petition was resisted by the revision petitioner/tenant on the grounds (1) that the respondent/landlord is one of the owners of the property and as the other two owners have not joined in the petition, the RCOP is not maintainable. (2) the petition premises is having two door numbers, namely, 64 and 65 and in door No.64 the tenant is residing with his family members and in Door No.65 he is doing the business of selling eggs, thereby door No.64 is a residential building and door No.65 is a non-residential building and consequently a single RCOP filed for evicting him from both the places is not maintainable. (3) The landlord's mother has got a house in door No.66 within the same compound which is vacant and the same can be used by the landlord and his family members. (4) The landlord is not at all residing in Mettupalayam where the petitioner's premises are situate and (5) the landlord has got another building in the same place thereby there is no bonafide in the RCOP filed by him.

3. The Rent Controller after elaborately evaluating the evidence let in by the parties held that the petitioner in RCOP alone is the owner of the petition premises bearing door Nos.64 and 65 and even otherwise he is entitled to file the RCOP as one of the owners of the property. The Rent Controller has further held that the tenant has not proved that door No.64 is a residential building and door No.65 is a non-residential building and therefore observed that the tenant is residing in both door numbers and he is also doing his business of selling eggs in the same building. The Rent Controller has also referred to the fact that the monthly rent of Rs.350/- is for both the building and in such circumstances there is no evidence to prove that one is a residential and another is a non-residential building. The Rent Controller has also adverted to the judgment of this court wherein it was held that if the building is let out for residential and non-residential purpose equally either of the provisions could be invoked. Therefore the landlord is entitled to claim the premises in question which has been let out partly for residential and partly for non-residential.

4. Insofar as the claim of the tenant that the landlord is not at all residing in Mettupalayam and he is residing at Ooty is concerned, the Rent Controller held that when the landlord is not having any building in Mettupalayam town he can very well maintain the eviction petition.

5. Similarly for the contention that there is another building owned by the landlord in Mettupalayam town, the Rent Controller after going through the evidence found that the building jointly owned by the landlord is situate at Karamadai Panchayat Union and not situated within the Mettupalayam municipality area and therefore the landlord is entitled to maintain the eviction petition. So also, for the contention that there is a building situated within the same compound owned by the mother of the landlord, the Rent Controller adverted to the fact that it was not owned by the lan