ORDER: The landlord is the revision petitioner. R.C.O.P.No.172 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default, change of user and for his own occupation. R.C.O.P.No.252 of 1996 was filed by the respondent for deposit of rent. The Rent Controller rejected the ground of wilful default as also change of user, but ordered eviction on the ground of own occupation. R.C.O.P.No.252 of 1996 was also dismissed. Against the orders, three appeals were filed, R.C.A.Nos.99, 100 of 1997 and 38 of 1998. The tenant filed R.C.A.Nos.99 and 100 of 1997 against the order of eviction passed on the grounds of owner’s occupation and the refusal to permit deposit of rent. The landlord has filed R.C.A.No.38 of 1998 against the rejection of the grounds of change of user and wilful default. The Appellate Authority dismissed the landlord’s appeal and also the tenant’s appeal under Sec.8(5) of the Act. R.C.A.No.99 of 1997 was allowed thereby dismissing the order of eviction. The present revision petitions C.R.P.Nos.3009 to 3011 of 1999 are filed against all these orders. The only petition that was argued was C.R.P.No.3010 of 1999 against R.C.A.No.99 of 1997. No arguments were advanced against the concurrent finding regarding change of user and wilful default.

2. The landlord’s case is that he is married and since he is staying with his father he would like to live separately and requires the place for his own use. The tenant resisted this on the ground that the petitioner has many houses in Madurai and that even now the petitioner is staying in his own house and therefore, there is lack of bona fides in the petition.

3. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was staying with his father and after marriage justifiably wants to have a separate residence. The Rent Controller found that the requirement is bona fide and that the tenant cannot dictate to the landlord that he could occupy some other property.

4. It is the petitioner’s case that in a family partition, the petition property was allotted to him. The Appellate Authority concluded that the requirement was not bona fide because (a) the partition deed which is the best evidence to show that the petitioner does not own any other residential premises was not filed, (b) no document was filed to show that the house in which the petitioner is now residing is his father’s house, (c) the petitioner had not chosen to adduce any evidence to prove that the space which he is now occupying is not sufficient for him and (d) the same building, 1500 sq.ft. in the first floor is vacant and could be used by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner’s case was not bona fide.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is absolutely no justification for the Appellate Authority to disbelieve his case. The pleadings and evidence would support the case of the petitioner and he also relied on Akhileshwar Kumar v. Mustaqim, (2003)1 S.C.C. 462,S.V.Janardanam v. D.Kivraj Sowkar, (2002)2 L.W. 611 and V.D.Murugesan v. V.Raj Mohammed, (1995)1 M.L.J. 84.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the fact that the partition deed was not produced would show that since there is lack of bona fides and absolutely there is no proof that the petitioner needs the property for his own use. The finding of the Appellate Authority cannot be interfered with in revision and there cannot be any reappraisal of evidence.

7. In his original petition the petitioner has stated that,

"he is now living with his father and since he is married he wants to live separately."

In the counter it is stated that the petitioner is staying in his own building and that the suit premises was let out by the petitioner’s father and the rent is also paid only to the petitioner’s father. In the evidence the petitioner had stated that,

In cross-examination he has stated,

In continuation of cross-examination, he has again

8. In R.W.1’s evidence it is stated that the petition p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document