The duty of the courts to consider the relative hardship of the tenant in eviction cases and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

1. Inveighing the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2007 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in RCA No.27 of 2005 confirming the order and decree dated 24.03.2005 passed by the learned District Munsif, Alandur in RCOP No.45 of 2002, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Niggard and bereft of details the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:

The respondents/landlords filed RCOP No.45 of 2002 as against the tenant for evicting him on the ground of additional accommodation by invoking Section 10(3)(c ) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The tenant filed the counter. During enquiry on the side of the landlords, one Suresh was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the respondent/tenant RW1 was examined and Exhibits Ex.R1 to R5 were marked. Ultimately, the Rent controller ordered eviction.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the tenant filed RCA No.27 of 2005 before the Appellate Authority, who dismissed the same after hearing both sides confirming the order of the Rent Controller. As against which, the revision petitioner/appellant/respondent has preferred this revision on various grounds among others.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision would advance his arguments, the gist and kernel of the same would run thus:

i) The Appellate Authority passed an order without adhering to the well settled propositions of law.

ii) The Appellate Court is expected to consider all the facts afresh and arrive at a conclusion but he had not done so.

iii) Both the courts below failed to take into account the alleged bona fide need of the landlords in seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of additional accommodation.

iv) The courts below also failed to take into account the hardship that would be caused to the tenant in the event of evicting him from the premises.

v) No specific points for determination or consideration were framed in respect of the bona fide requirement of the landlord and the relative hardship that would be caused to the tenant in the event of ordering eviction.

vi) The RCOP was filed by the landlords having in mind the motive that the tenant failed to pay the enhanced advance like other tenants who are occupying the nearby premises under the same landlords.

vii) There are no averments in the Rent Control original petition detailing and delineating, relating to the ingredient hardship as found envisaged under Section 10(3)(c ) of the Act.

Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the orders of both the courts below and for dismissing the RCOP, alternis visibus he prayed for remitting the matter back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority to rehear the matter afresh and to pass a reasoned judgment.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords, by way of contradicting and refuting, challenging and impugning the arguments as put forth on the side of the tenant, advanced his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus:

a) The Rent Control proceedings are expected to be summary in nature and it would not be open for the tenant to argue that the authorities concerned have not passed elaborate orders. However, in this case, both the courts below took into account all the ingredients as contemplated under Section 10(3) (c) as well as 10 (3) (e) including the first proviso there under and analysed the evidence and passed orders warranting no interference in revision.

b) There is no hard and fast rule that there should be specific pleadings meticulously pertaining to the ingredients as found set out in those provisions. It is sufficient, if there are averments pointing towards the bona fide requirement of the landlord and the relative hardship, which would outweigh the benefit that the landlord would be getting in evicting the tenant.

7. Thelearned counsel for