Pleading regarding comparative hardship is not a mandatory requirement.

The landlady is the revision petitioner. She sought eviction of the respondent under Secs.10(3)(a)(i) and 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’) in R.C.O.P.No.252 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruchirappalli.

2. The case of the landlady as set out on the petition was as follows:

The respondent is a tenant in respect of the front portion of the building, namely door No.4, Paathakadai Lane, Chinna Chowk, Tiruchirapalli, consisting of two rooms, kitchen and bath room on a monthly rent of Rs.150 payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month. She is a gosha woman living in a rented building. She has three grown up daughters. She requires the entire building including the portion in the occupation of the respondent bona fide for her own occupation. She has already got one of the tenants S.S.Raj vacated and that portion is remaining vacant. She is not able to occupy the property as it is impossible to use the property without getting the other portion also vacated. She has already obtained eviction through Court against one Hanifa and at the time of filing eviction petition the petition was pending before the Appellate Authority. The portion in the occupation of the respondent is also required so that it will be able to occupy the entire building. The requirement is bona fide genuine and it is not with any ulterior motive. On this requirement for own occupation the respondent is liable to be evicted.

.3. The respondent resisted the petition inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner is not a gosha woman; that she is not adopting partha system; that she is not living in a rented building; that the requirement is not bona fide that the allegation that she got one S.S.Raja vacated is false, but he vacated the building as he found it inconvenient for his use; that as he was threatened with forcible trespass on the property, he had to file a suit; that she required the entirety of the building had not been specifically raised in the notice issued prior to the eviction petition and that only after reply from the respondent a new plea has been stated in the petition; that the petitioner demanded enhanced rent and the respondent having refused to pay the same, the eviction petition came to be filed.

4. Thelearned Rent Controller framed necessary points for consideration and on the oral and documentary evidence held that though a case under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act had not been made out a case under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act had been made out; that the petitioner required the entirety of the building for her own occupation and for the members of her family; that the relative hardship to the respondent would not outweigh the advantage to the revision petitioner; that the revision petitioner was entitled to an order of eviction. The respondent filed R.C.A.No.11 of 1994 before the Appellate Authority namely, the Subordinate Judge, Trichy, who, by his judgment dated 9. 1996 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the application for eviction. Aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed.

5. Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority, having found that the requirement was bona fide and that the relative hardship that would be caused to the tenant would not outweigh the advantage to the landlady, allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition. On the solitary ground that the revision petitioner has not specifically pleaded in the petition that the advantage to the landlady would outweigh the hardship caused to the tenant by reason of her asking to vacate the property. The learned counsel relied on a number of decisions in support of his contentions regarding lack of pleadings and in particular, the following judgments:

1. Hiralal Moolchan