In revision landlord if can agitate issue of bonafide requirement.

ORDER :- The tenant is the petitioner. The respondents-landlords filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.7 of 1979 for an order of eviction against the petitioner under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the case of the respondents, the property in the occupation of the petitioner belonged to the joint family of respondents 1 to 3, their father and brother one deceased Gopalan. In 1963, the father renounced the world and became an ascetic and also released his share in the property in favour of his sons, the respondents 1 to 3 herein and Gopalan. Gopalan, the brother of respondents 1 to 3 and husband of the fourth respondent and father of respondents 5 and 6, died subsequently and the respondents became the owners of the property in question. The petitioner, according to the case of the respondents, became a tenant in respect of this property through one Venkatanathan. On an earlier occasion, an application for eviction in R.C.O.P. No.14 of 1971 was filed by the first respondent herein against Venkatanathan, since deceased, and the petitioner on the ground of wilful default and that the petitioner is a sub-lessee under Venkatanathan and the application for eviction was allowed by the Rent Controller and the order was affirmed in appeal. But in C.R.P. No.2418 of 1973, it was held that the petitioner is a direct tenant of the first respondent and others. The respondents stated that the mother of respondents 1 to 3 is an old pious, religious and orthodox lady and is anxious to spend the evening of her life at Kumbakonam with a view to take dips in the holy Cauvery and have the worship of the deity in the temple in order to secure salvation for her soul. It was also the further case of the respondents that the third respondent had been insane for some years and that the doctors had advised that his recovery would be faster if there is a change of climate and environment and, therefore, the respondents bona fide needed the premises in the occupation of the petitioner for these purposes. The respondents further stated that in spite of the adjudication in C.R.P. No.2418 of 1973, the petitioner did not pay any rent from October 1973 till the end of 1978, though the tenancy commenced from May 1970 onwards and the default in the payment of rents committed by the petitioner was characterised as wilful default. The respondents also stated that as regards the advance of Rs. 2,000/- which was directed by the order in C.R.P. No.2418 of 1973 to be adjusted against the rents payable by the petitioner, it could not be so done because the petitioner instituted a suit in O.S. No.238 of 1973, District Munsif's Court, Kumbakonam, against Venkatanathan and the first respondent herein and also obtained a decree against the said Venkatanathan. Alleging that in spite of several notices, the petitioner had not paid the rents and that such non-payment was wilful, the respondents filed the application for eviction as aforesaid under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.

2. The petitioner, while accepting the status of the first respondent as landlord, disputed that of the respondents 2 to 6. According to the case of the petitioner, Venkatanathan, an agent of the first respondent required a sum of Rupees 2,000/- to be given as advance to be adjusted towards the future rents for the purpose of carrying out repairs to the building and that when the building was so let out in 1970, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. But Venkatanathan did not effect any repair, nor did he provide water tap connection as promised. In addition, the petitioner also claimed that municipal taxes, repair charges, water tap connection charges, additional electric deposits, etc. have all been paid by him and these amounts as well as the amount of Rs. 2,000/- have to be adjusted as against the rents payable by the petitioner