A petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, does not automatically become non-maintainable because the landlady subsequently acquires accommodation. The court must consider whether the accommodation acquired by the landlady is sufficient to meet the needs of her family.

1. The only question which is raised in this revision petition filed by the tenant is, whether the claim made by the landlady originally on the ground of personal requirement of the premises in question that she was living in a rented premises and that she required the premises in the occupation of the tenant because of the large family consisting of her two married sons each of whom has children should be rejected on the ground that subsequent to the passing of the order of eviction by the Rent Controller, the landlady has come in possession of some accommodation belonging to herself.

2. The landlady came to court with a specific case that she bona fide required the portion of the premises in the occupation of the tenant for her own occupation, as she was residing in rented premises and that she found it difficult to live in the accommodation along with her sons and their family.

3. The Rent Controller held that the landlady was living in a rented premises and the claim of the landlady was bona fide. The Rent Controller, therefore, ordered eviction. In appeal filed by the tenant, the appellate authority confirmed this finding and the order of eviction.

4. The tenant has now filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent findings given by both the authorities.

5. The only ground which is urged on behalf of the petitioner-tenant in this revision petition is that, pending the disposal of the civil revision petition, two tenants of the landlady, one Dayalan and one Adikesavan, have vacated the premises in their occupation. This premises, according to the affidavit filed by the tenant, consists of two rooms and a hall which were originally occupied by each tenant. The argument is that now that the landlady is in occupation of her own premises her claim under S.10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, cannot be canvassed and that it was open to her now to make a fresh claim against the present tenant on the ground of additional accommodation under S.10(3)(c) of the Act.

6. The landlady has filed an affidavit in reply to the affidavit filed by the tenant in which she states that the portion which was in the occupation of the tenant Dayalan was only a room 8 -10, in size and that her son Krishanamurthi with his wife and two children are inconveniently occupying the same and in respect of the portion occupied by the other tenant which has been vacated she has stated is only one room 8 -10 and one small koodam 8 -10 in which her son Badri Narayanan along with his wife and children are inconveniently residing. Both the premises are according to her, insufficient and that she does not have any place to reside since in the two portions her two sons are themselves not very comfortable in the accommodation.

7. Now reference has been made by the learned counsel for the tenant to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Variety Emporium v. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina 1. In that decision the Supreme Court had observed that no authority is needed for the proposition that in appropriate cases the court must have regard to events as they present themselves as at the time when it is hearing the proceeding before it and mould the relief in the light of those events. The Supreme Court in that decision referred to the earlier decision in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad 1, and reproduced the following observations:—

“When an action is brought by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement, the landlords case must not only be shown to exist at the date of the suit, but it must exist on the date of the appellate decree, or the date when a higher Court deals with the matter. During the progress and passage of proceeding from court to court, if subsequent events occur which, it noticed would non-suit the landlord, the court has to examine and evaluate those events and mould the decree accordingly. The tenant is entitled to show that the