Requirement of landlord held bonafide.

ORDER:- The only contention urged in this civil revision petition at the instance of the tenant is that the application filed by the respondent herein under S.10 (3) (c) 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) for an order of eviction against the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the first floor in premises No. 76 T.K. Mudali St. Choolai, Madras 7 on a monthly rent of Rs. 85. Admittedly, the respondent is the landlord of the premises. According to the case of the respondent, his first wife's son, who is working as an Executive Engineer in the Corporation of Madras, requested the respondent to provide him with a portion in order to set up his family separately and that in May 1976, when the second floor portion fell vacant, the respondent made it available to his son. Alleging that the second floor portion has asbestos roofing, which makes the premises very hot during day time, that the roofing had also developed leakage and that there is no water facility available for the family of his son, his wife and two children, the respondent filed an application under S.10 (3) (c) of the Act, for an order of eviction against the petitioner herein in respect of the first floor under his occupation after terminating the tenancy by notice.

2. The petitioner resisted the application by contending that the petition is not maintainable and that the application for eviction had been filed on account of the refusal of the petitioner to accede to a demand for higher rent by the respondent. The application for eviction was also characterised as mala fide.

3. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller held that the application for eviction filed by the respondent herein is not maintainable and that it is also not bona fide. On this conclusion, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the respondent preferred an appeal in H.R.A. No. 1279 of 1979 to the appellate authority (7th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The appellate authority held that the petition for eviction is maintainable and that the application is also bona fide and genuine. The question of relative hardship was also considered by the appellate authority and it was found that greater hardship would be caused to the son of the respondent by not making the additional accommodation available to him than the hardship that the petitioner would be put to as a result of the passing of the order of eviction. On these conclusions, the dismissal of the application for eviction was set aside and an order of eviction was passed.

4. The principal objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent cannot maintain an application for an order of eviction under S.10 (3) (c) of the Act, on the ground that such additional accommodation is required for his son. Elaborating this contention, it is urged that it would be open to the landlord to ask for additional accommodation for himself and not on the ground of the requirement of his son or any other member of his family. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the wider interpretation put upon the word 'landlord' by Courts having been accepted by the Legislature, it stands to reason that the additional accommodation need not be personal only to the landlord and that such accommodation could also be secured for and on behalf of himself or for his son or other members of his family as well.

5. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions raised, the provisions of the section in so far as they are relevant may be referred to. S.10 (3) (c) of the Act runs thus-

"A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, may, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole