Landlord not occupying a residential building of which he is the sole owner thereof.

The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord applied to the Rent Controller under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18/1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the eviction of the revision petitioner who was a tenant in respect of a portion in the ground floor in premises No.3, Oilmonger Street, Tripli-cane Madras-5, on a monthly rent of Rs.25/-, on the ground that he required that portion of the premises in question for the occupation of his undivided brother.

2. The tenant/revision petitioner raised mainly two contentions: (1) that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and (2) that the petition filed by respondent/landlord under section 10(3)(c) of the Act is not maintainable.

3. The Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and that the landlord was correct in applying under section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and accordingly allowed the petition of the landlord ordering eviction of the petitioner. The appellate court confirmed the order of the Rent Controller.

4. The two points raised now are the same as those raised before the courts below. In regard to the first point, viz. that the requirement is not bona fide, both the courts below have clearly held that the requirement is bona fide. It is pointed out that there was strained relationship between the landlord and his brother, Balasubra-manian, that he wanted to be separate in food and residence, that on that account he even got transferred to Kancheepuram and that requirement of the landlord is bona fide since his brother has to be separately accommodated in the premises. On this aspect, the petitioner has nothing to say, but however, he would contend that an earlier petition filed by the landlord for eviction was dismissed and therefore the landlord has filed this petition before the court as though he requires the premises for the occupation of his brother, which is not a bona fide requirement. It is admitted by the tenant/ revision petitioner himself that the earlier petition was filed in the year 1979 and after that in the year 1982 the landlord has filed this present petition. Therefore, it is clear that the earlier petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default has nothing to do with the present application requiring the premises for the occupation of the landlord’s brother.

5. The only point that now remains for consideration is whether the respondent/landlord ought to have applied under section 10(3)(c) of the Act and whether his application under section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act is not maintainable. A perusal of the eviction petition shows that the petition-premises belongs to the respondent herein, his mother and his brother and that after the death of the respondent’s father in 1965, the respondent has been looking after the family as the eldest male member and karta of the family. It is in that capacity, the respondent/landlord seeks eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner on the ground that he requires the premises for the occupation of his undivided brother.

6. Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited my attention to section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and contended that the landlord can apply under that section only if the landlord requires that residential building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying a residential building of his own and that as his brother now owns residence along with his brother, the landlord is precluded from applying under section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner to support his arguments points out to section 10(3)(c) of the Act, which says that a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building whether residential or non-residential, may apply, to the Controller for an order directing the tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put t