Requirement of premises must continue till final adjudication.

In both these revisions, tenant is the revision petitioner. C.R.P: No.890 of 1995 arises from R.C.O.P. No.977 of 1990, on the file of IV Judge, Small Causes Court at Madras. The said eviction petition was filed by the landlady alleging that the building is required for the bona fide own occupation of her newly married son, who was examined as P.W.1 in this case. The other revision, namely, C.R.P. No.3444 of 1991 is against

R.C.O.P. No.3320 of 1985, which is an application for fixation of fair rent filed by the landlady. The agreed rent was Rs.175. Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,638 per mensem. When the matter was taken in appeal, by tenant as well as landlady, fair rent was fixed at Rs.1,408.

2. In the eviction petition, the case of the landlady is that she needs the building bona fide for her own occupation, in the sense that her son who is a member of the family got married recently. The son has no other building of his own and, therefore, she requires the building for the residence of her newly married son.

3. As against the said contention, tenant averred that the landlords are in possession of various other buildings. The bona fide of the claim was also disputed. Tenant contended that when the landlady has filed a petition for fixation of fair rent claiming enhanced rent, that itself shows that the claim is not in good faith. In the application for fixation of fair rent, landlady claimed rent at Rs.4,160. But the Rent Controller fixed the same at Rs.1,638 only, and it was also subsequently reduced to Rs.1,408 by the Appellate Authority. According to the tenant, since the landlady could not get the expected enhanced rent, she has filed the eviction petition without any good faith.

4. In the eviction proceedings, the landlady’s son for whose requirement, the building in question is sought, was examined as P.W.1. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the tenant. Exs.R-1 to P-4 were marked on the side of the landlady. Exs.R-1 to R-6 were marked on the side of the tenant. Exs.C-1 to C-6 were marked as court exhibits.

.5. On evaluating the entire evidence, Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlady is not bona fide. It was found by the Rent Controller that the landlady has got other buildings which she could use for her requirement, and the present claim is not justified. Against that order, landlady preferred R.C.A. No.1126 of 1993, on the file of VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras. The Appellate Authority reconsidered the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that if the son is not having any building of his own, merely because his father or younger brother, or even the petitioner having a building need not disqualify him. The claim was found to be bona fide, and eviction was ordered. It was further found that the application for fixation of fair rent will not debar the landlady from putting forth a claim on the ground that she bona fide requires the building for her own occupation. What the landlady wants is only an assessment of the fair rent under the Rent Control Act.

6. It is against the said judgment, C.R.P. No.890 of 1995 is filed.

7. The main question to be considered in this case is, whether the claim of the landlady is bona fide or not.

8. It is settled law that a claim for eviction, on the ground of bona fide own occupation, that requirement must be available to the landlord not only on the date of petition but it should continue to be there on the date of final adjudication of rights. If, in between the periods, there is a change of circumstance due to subsequent events, that is also a matter which should be taken into consideration by this Court.

9. The appellate authority has found that P.W.l has no building of his own. Ownership or possession of a building by the parents or younger brother will not disqualify the landlord from getting possession of another building if the person for whose requirement the building is needed, is having no othe