Scope of exemption under Section 30(ii) of the Act.

ORDER :- This is a revision petition preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of eviction passed against the petitioner by the Rent Controller, Madurai in R.C.O.P. 569 of 1975 on the file of his court and confirmed by the Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge, Madurai) in C.M.A. 146 of 1977 on the file of his court.

2. The respondent, who is the landlord, leased out the petition premises some years ago on a monthly rent of Rupees 485/-. The demised premises comprises a portion of the ground floor, wherein the petitioner is having his business and the entire first floor, wherein the petitioner is residing with his family. The respondent sought the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act, on the ground that one of his sons, by name, Radhakrishnan, who is a practising advocate at Madurai, has married a lady doctor and they are bona fide in need of the demised premises for their residence-cum-professional activities.

3. The petitioner resisted the petition for eviction on various grounds. He first disputed the quantum of rent and alleged that the monthly rent was only Rupees 225, and not Rs. 485. He nextly contended that since the demised premises had been leased out to him for residential as well as non-residential purposes, the landlord's application under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act was not maintainable. He further contended that the son and daughter-in-law of the landlord were not genuinely in need of the building and the petition had been filed with an oblique motive, since he refused to pay the enhanced rent that was demanded of him by the landlord.

4. The Rent Controller, rejected all the contentions of the tenant and ordered eviction. In so far as the objection raised about the landlord not being entitled to ask for possession of the building for residential purposes, when the premises had been let out for residential as well as non-residential purposes, the Rent Controller applied the ratio laid down in Moinuddin v. Rukmani AIR 1972 Mad 263 and held that where a building has been let out for residential as well as non-residential purposes, the landlord was entitled to seek recovery of possession of the building either for residential or for non-residential purposes.

5. The Appellate Authority affirmed the view taken by the Rent Controller, and pointed out that as per the decisions in Dakshinamurthi v. Thulajibai (1952) 1 Mad LJ 390 : (AIR 1952 Mad 413) (FB), where the court finds the letting to be equally for residential and non-residential purposes and not mainly or substantially for the one or the other kind of purpose, the application by the landlord would be maintainable either under Section 7 (3) (a) (i) or Section 7 (3) (a) (ii) of the old Act, corresponding to Secs. 10 (3) (a) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (ii) of the present Act. The Appellate Authority also found that the landlord bona fide required the premises for the occupation of his son and daughter-in-law, and therefore, the tenant was bound to vacate the premises. Accordingly, he confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

6. In the revision petition, Mr. Himmatlal Mardia, learned counsel for the petitioner, repeated the contentions that were put forward by the

tenant before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, and raised a further contention that in view of Section 30 of the Act, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the landlord.

(In paragraph 7 of the Order the evidence regarding the bona fides of the landlord's requirement was considered and upheld).

8. Before dealing with the second of the contentions of Mr. Mardia, I will deal with the new ground of objection raised in the revision petition. This objection does not find a place in the grounds of revision and is put forward only at the time of arguments. The argument of Mr. Mardia runs thu