Right to evict is a personal right.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, herein after called ‘the Act’ made in RCA No. 153/89 dated 11. 99, rejecting the petitioners application for eviction on the ground that the claim for owner’s occupation by the petitioners was not bona fide. Before reaching that conclusion, the learned Appellate Authority has also given a finding on one very vital issue viz., as to whether a subsequent purchaser of the petition premises can proceed to claim the relief claimed under the original petition by the erstwhile landlord on the ground of owner’s occupation under Section 10 (3) a (iii) of the Act. In respect of the said question, the Appellate Authority by relying upon the judgment reported in S.V. Chidambara Pillai v. Subramaniam Chettiar , 1989 (2) LW 412 and Arumugha Naicker v. Baladhandayuthapani , 1998 (1) LW 616 was of the view that while the subsequent purchaser was entitled to continue with the proceedings is however bound to prove his bonafide claim for seeking eviction on the ground of owner’s occupation.

2. This revision petition has been filed challenging that part of the order of the appellate authority holding that the claim of the petitioners was not bonafide. However, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant resisted in the first instance with the very formidable objection as to the very maintainability of the appeal proceedings itself by the Appellate Authority, in view of the legal hurdle, that the subsequent purchaser cannot be construed as a person, who is eligible to claim the relief made in the original application which was peculiarly personal to the erstwhile landlord, so as to enable him to continue the appeal proceedings. The learned counsel by referring to the definition of ‘the Rent Controller’, the provisions contained under Section 10 Sub section 2, Sub section 3. Section 14 and Section 23 of the Act contended that the consideration of the application filed under Section 10 (2) and Section 14 of the Act will stand on entirely different footing than the one filed under Section 10 ( 3) of the Act. Elaborating on that the learned counsel contended that Section 10(2) of the Act provide for eviction of a tenant on the ground of any default being committed at his instances. While the various grounds available for eviction under Section 30 (3) of the Act related to the personal grievances of the land lord and that section 14 would come into operation with reference to any change to be carried out in respect of the very property itself. The learned counsel further contended that while an application filed for eviction under section 10(2) and 14 could possibly be continued even by the subsequent purchaser, the same will not be the case in respect of an application preferred under the provisions of Section 10 (3) of the Act.

3. Thelearned counsel also submitted that though the Appellate Authority has held against the respondent, on the issue relating to the maintainability of the appeal proceedings by the subsequent purchaser, having regard to the rulings of this Honourable Court reported in K. Venkataramani v. S. Aravamuthan , 1981 (1) MLJ 516 and Thirumalaiappa Gounder v. A.G. Kannappa Nadar , 1981 (1) MLJ (SN) 19 the respondent could still contend that the appeal ought to have been rejected by the Appellate Authority even on the main ground of very maintainability of the Appeal by the subsequent purchaser. The learned counsel would state that the subsequent purchaser filed applications before the Appellate Authority for getting themselves impleaded in the place of the erstwhile landlord that those applications were also opposed by the respondent on the very same plea that the subsequent pu rchasers were not competent to continue the proceedings launched by the erstwhile owner of the petition premises, that in respect of those proceedings Revision Petitions came to be filed in this Hon