ORDER: The revision petitioner is the tenant and he had filed the present revision petition aggrieved against the concurrent order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and later confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

2. The case in brief is as follows:

The respondent/ landlady filed a petition under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to evict the revision petitioner from the premises. The respondent is the landlady of the premises bearing Door No.94, Medavakam Tank Road, Kilpauk, Madras-600 010, and the revision petitioner is the tenant in respect of the shop measuring 11 feet x 23 feet on a monthly rent of Rs.850. The landlady is carrying on business under the name and style “Gemini Pharmaceuticals” at No.16, V.P.Colony, Madras, engaged in distribution of medicines to various companies. The building in which she is carrying on the business is in a residential building and insufficient and inconvenient for her and she has been repeatedly asking the tenant to vacate the shop for her own occupation. A portion is required for the own occupation of the landlady to carry on her business. She is not in occupation of any other portion. She had also sent a legal notice calling upon the tenant to deliver the vacant possession. Besides, the tenant is not prompt in paying the rent from month to month and irregular in paying the rent. He has not paid the rent from January, 1995 to August, 1995 for 8 months amounting to Rs.6,800. Inspite of repeated demands he had shown supine indifference and committed wilful default in payment of rent. Hence, the revision petition.

3. The revision petitioner/ tenant opposed the application. According to him, the premises bearing No.16, V.P. Colony, Madras, is the property of the petitioner and it is a Bungalow type building situated in about two grounds. Therefore, the allegation for requirement of the premises by the landlady for her business is not bona fide. She never requested the tenant to vacate the portion for her own occupation. He refused to pay enhanced rent and increased advance and as such she has filed the Rent Control Petition. In fact, she has also filed an application for fixation of fair rent. Apart from this shop, there are other two shops in the ground floor. One ship is left out for seat cover manufacturing business. The first floor is partly used as residential and other part is used by the son of the landlady for Ready-made Garments business. The second floor is let out to seat cover manufacturing business and it is available to the landlady. It is an oblique motive to evict the tenant. The rents were paid up to date and there is no arrears. He has been sending the rent by Money Order. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The landlady husband was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked. On behalf of the tenant, he was examined as R.W.1 and no other document was filed. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application filed by the landlady and ordered eviction and granted one month time for delivery of possession. The tenant preferred R.C.A. No.292 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the learned Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal and granted two months time for delivery of vacant possession. Aggrieved against this, the tenant has come forward with the present revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The points that arise for consideration are:

(1) Whether the orders passed by the Courts below are proper and correct?

(2) Whether the request of the landlady for own occupation is bona fide?

(3) Whether the revision petitioner/ tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent?

(4) To what relief?

6. There is no dispute that the schedule mentioned property belongs to the landlady and it was rented out to the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.850. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the landlady to evict the revision petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document