-Bonafide of requirement of landlady established.

This civil revision petition, at the instance of the tenant, has been preferred against the order of eviction passed against the petitioner, by the Appellate Authority, on an application taken out by the respondent herein, under Sec.l0(3)(a)(i) 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’). Briefly stated, the circumstances giving rise to this C.R.P., are as follows:

The premises bearing door No.60, Ellis Road, Madras-2, belongs to the respondent and the petitioner is in occupation of the first floor in that property, as a tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs.625. The respondent was in occupation, as a tenant, of door No.4, IV Cross Road, C.I.T. Colony, Madras-4, belonging to one Sri T.A.Ramachandran and the furniture and other house-hold articles belonging to her, were kept in the rented premises, when the landlady was obliged to be away from Madras and the respondent as well as the other members of her family, stayed in the rented premises, whenever they were in Madras. In order to secure her own premises for her use and occupation, as she did not have any other residential premises of her own in the city of Madras, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 19. 1984 calling upon him to vacate and hand over vacant possession, for which, the petitioner sent a reply declining to comply with the demand. The respondent stated that she requires the premises in the occupation of the petitioner for her own use and occupation, viz., residence for herself and other members of her family whenever they are at Madras and also for keeping her furniture and other household articles, valuables, etc., and that she bona fide requires the first floor in the occupation of the petitioner for her own use and occupation. Accordingly, she prayed for an order of eviction against the petitioner under Sec. 10(3)(a) (i) of the Act.

2. In the counter filed by the petitioner, he put forward the plea that the petitioner was not residing as a tenant at Door No.4, IV Cross Road, C.I.T. Colony, Madras-4 and further denied that the respondent did not own any other property in the city of Madras. That the respondent was bona fide in need of the building, was also denied by the petitioner. Stating that the respondent belongs to Gujarat and her husband was employed, in the Sultanate of Oman and she is permanently settled with her husband at Muscat, the petitioner questioned the bona fides of the requirement of the respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the eviction petition.]

3. Before the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, on behalf of the respondent, Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked and P.Ws.l and 2 gave evidence, while, on behalf of the petitioner, Exs.R-1 to R-6 were filed and R.Ws.l and 2 were examined. In the course of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the petitioner also raised an objection that the application for eviction filed by the respondent, was defective, in that, it did not conform to the requirements of Rule 11(3) of the Rules framed under the Act. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller took the view that the eviction petition filed by the respondent had been signed by the power of attorney agent of the respondent and not by herself and that would render the application for eviction not maintainable. Dealing with the question of bona fides of the requirement of the respondent, the Rent Controller found that the inaction of the respondent from 1981-82 to l984 and again between l984 and l986, in the matter of taking proceedings against the petitioner seeking his eviction, would throw doubts on the bona fides of the requirement of the respondent and that, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to an order of eviction as prayed for by her. Ultimately, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition filed by the respondent, against which, the respon