Landlord getting possession of the ground for finding vacant on the date of application.

S. Mohan, J.

1. The landlord is the revision petitioner before me. He sought eviction against the respondent in respect of the first floor of the premises bearing door No. 10, 6th Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, which, has been let out to the respondent for residential purpose. The case of the landlord was that he was residing in a rented house and he wanted to occupy the petition premises for his own use and occupation and, therefore, the requirement is bona fide. A notice was issued on 1st December, 1978, Exhibit P-3 terminating the tenancy with effect from 31st December, 1978. In spite of the same, the tenant did not comply with the demand. Hence, the petition.

2. The respondent in his counter raised the following contentions. It is not correct to say that the petitioner wants to stay in his own house independently. The requirement is not bona fide. The petitioner does not require the premises under the occupation of the respondent for his own use and occupation. The respondent denies the allegation that the petitioner is not occupying any building of his own in the City of Madras. The eviction application lacks bona fides because the respondent was not willing to pay higher rent as demanded by the landlord. (Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. The Rent Controller posed a question as to whether the petitioner's claim is bona fide. He came to the conclusion that inasmuch as under Exhibit P-l, the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises and had merely asked for time till May, 1978, it would be clear that the tenant himself had accepted the bona fide requirement of the landlord and, therefore, he ordered eviction.

4. On appeal, the only point that loomed large before the appellate authority was about the availability of the first floor occupied till then, by one Mr. Raghavan, Director of Posts and Telegraphs Department. The appellate authority examined the evidence tendered by the revision petitioner as P.W. 2 and came to the conclusion that the ground floor was occupied by one Mr. Raghavan, Director of Telegraphs. This statement was reiterated when he was recalled and examined. However, the landlord had stated that he wanted the entire house for his own occupation. On this, basis, though he found that there was bona fide in the need of the petitioner, in so far as the ground floor was vacant at the time of the filing of the petition, he should come forward with an application, seeking eviction of the tenant in the first floor under Section 10(3)(c) and not under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and' Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Act. In other words, the application should have been one for additional accommodation and not for bona fide requirement for residential purpose, as though the landlord was not in occupation of a residential premises or portion of his own. Accordingly, he set aside the order of eviction. It is under those circumstances, the present revision petition has come to be preferred.

5. The learned Advocate-General would contend that the approach of the appellate authority is wrong, because eviction against the tenant of the ground floor was sought for only on 11th November, 1981, when the petition came to be filed and eviction was ordered on 23rd December, 1981. Therefore, the Court below was wrong in holding, as if the ground floor portion was available and consequently the petition was not maintainable.

6. In opposition to this, Mr. S. Govind Swaminathan, the learned Counsel for the respondent would state that this very application for eviction against the tenant of the ground" floor came to be filed only to bolster the claim of the landlord and this is nothing but a camouflage or a cover to get over the important admissions which the landlord was obliged to make when he was in the witness box. Therefore, that should not be accepted. While tendering testimony, the landlord as P.W. 2 has spoken in more than one place that the gro