Dismissal of petition filed for eviction of tenant.

T. Sathiadev, J.

1. The landlady is the petitioner. She filed the petition under Section 10(2)(i) on the ground of wilful default; under Section 10(3)(a)(1) requiring the premises, for her own use and occupation; and under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) since the tenant has converted the premises for a different use, namely for non-residential purpose, when the tenancy was only for residential purpose, and therefore liable to be evicted under Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960.

2. In her petition, she stated that the premises bearing Door No. 24, North Part Street, Venkatapuram, Ambattur was let out to the tenant for a monthly rental of Rs. 200 and that the premises is required for her own use and occupation as she does not own any other house, and that it was let out only for residential purpose by the petitioner, but the tenant has now started using the premises for non-residential purpose, namely for a laundry which causes nuisance and inconvenience to the neighbours, and that he has not paid rent for the months January to March, 1970, for March, 1971 and February, 1973, in all for a period of five months aggregating to Rs. 1,000 and also a sum of Rs. 80 for the month of April, 1970. Thus in all, a sum of Rs. 1,080 remains to be paid and in spite of issue of lawyer's notice on 1st February, 1973, determining the tenancy by the end of February, 1973, he had avoided delivering possession of the property. The claim that he has spent about Rs. 20,000 in the premises is false and no such improvements have been effected. No advance to the extent of Rs. 3,000 as claimed, was ever received by her.

3. In the counter-statement filed by the tenant, who is the respondent herein, he claimed that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the petitioner herein, and that it was only her husband who leased out the premises to him and the tenancy commenced in the middle of December, 1969 but later on treated as one of an English Calendar month. He has also stated that he has paid a sum of Rs. 3,000 by way of advance to the husband of the petitioner on the specific understanding that the premises is to be used for dry cleaning and laundry purpose and it was only on this understanding, a high rent of Rs. 200 was fixed for this premises, and the present claim that it was let out for residential purpose is a deliberate lie, whereas originally the premises was taken on lease only for the conduct of the business in dry cleaning and the claim that he has not paid rent is false for the months mentioned by the petitioner, as her husband had received those payments and that he has not committed any wilful default as claimed by her, and that the petitioner is not in need of the premises as she has moved to the city for education of her children, and there is no bona fides in the claim, and that he has spent nearly Rs. 20,000 for the construction of an overhead tank, cloth washing tank, cloth boiling stove and latrine and towards other improvements and it was only when he refused to pay enhanced rent, the present petition has come to be filed.

4. The petition for eviction was filed on three grounds. On the ground of wilful default pleaded, both the authorities had come to the conclusion that the alleged wilful default is not true. On the second ground that the tenant had converted the premises from residential to non-residential premises, both the authorities have concurrently held that this claim is baseless, and that the tenant has not used the building for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out.

5. It is only on the aspect of 'bona fide' requirement for the use and personal occupation of the landlord, that the Rent Controller held in her favour, whereas the Appellate Authority held that this claim is not entertainable on the ground that having let out premises for non-residential purpose, she is not entitled to require the premises for residential purpose and therefore rejected her petition.

6. Aggrieved against