Alternate accommodation not available to tenant is no ground to reject claim of landlord.

The landlord is the petitioner. He filed the eviction petition against the respondent-tenant under section 10 (3) (c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960. In that petition, the landlord has averred that his family has grown, that one of his daughters has since been married and another daughter and son also have to be married shortly, that on account of the growth of the family as well as increase in the number of visitors and guests owing to the alliance etc., he finds that the present accommodation in the first floor is very inadequate to meet his needs, that he is put to such inconvenience and hardship for want of sufficient accommodation that the rear portion of the first floor in the occupation of another tenant, being small and inconvenient, is not sufficient to meet the needs of the petitioner and that the landlord requires the ground-floor portion in the occupation of the respondent-tenant for bona fide additional accommodation.

2. The respondent-tenant contended that there are no bona fides in the prayer of the landlord, that the portion in the occupation of the respondent is a non-residential one and as such it cannot be claimed for residential purposes, that the rear portion in the first-floor has since fallen vacant and as such the landlord can take possession of the same which will accommodate a big family, that the accommodation available for the petitioner in the first-floor is more than sufficient for his convenient enjoyment, that the respondent is carrying on business for a number of years and has set up a good will in the locality, that the respondent cannot get any alternative accommodation in the same locality and that in any event the hardship that will be caused to the respondent in directing his eviction will really outweigh the convenience petitioner might enjoy in that event.

3. The Sixth Judge, Court of Small Causes who is the Rent Controller, allowed the eviction petition and ordered the eviction of the respondent herein. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction, holding that there are no bona fides in the petitioner’s claim for additional accommodation and that the hardship that would be caused to the respondent would outweigh the convenience that would accrue to the landlord in case of eviction.

4. As regards the maintainability of the eviction petition, raised by the respondent herein, on the ground that the portion in his occupation is only non-residential and as such the petitioner cannot get that portion for residential purposes, the same was negatived by both the Courts below. There is no argument on this aspect of the case now before this Court, and as such the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below that the petition is maintainable, will stand good.

5. Thiru K.S. Desikan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, took me through the judgments of the Courts below and also the evidence on record and the relevant documents in the case. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 1 that he is working in the National and Grindley’s Bank as an Officer drawing a salary of Rs. 1,645, that his eldest son is a Lecturer in the Indian Institute of Technology and is doing research work there to get the Doctorate, that the said son is earning Rs. 620 per mensem, that his next boy is studying B. Tech. in the Indian Institute of Technology, that his eldest daughter is married and that his two other daughters are studying. He had also given evidence to the effect that the existing accommodation is not sufficient for his residence inasmuch as his family is growing and that to maintain the status in relation to his income and strength of his family, it is but necessary to have the portion in the occupation of the respondent herein by way of additional accommodation. He emphatically denied the suggesion that the petition filed by him for eviction is a ruse to somehow or other get rid of the r