Relative hardship not to be weighed on a delicate scale giving benefit to the tenant.

1. Thetenant is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.88 of 1985 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Madurai, under Secs.10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that:

(i) the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for 27 months from November, 1984 to February, 1985, and

(ii) the petition premises is bona fide required by the respondent/landlord for additional accommodation for residential purpose.

2. The respondent/landlord did not press the alleged ground of wilful default before the learned Rent Controller, and therefore, the grievance of the respondent/landlord as to the additional accommodation alone was considered by the authorities below.

3. According to the respondent/landlord, his family consists of himself, his wife, four children, and as the children are growing, the revision petitioner bona fide requires the petition premises for additional accommodation, which is located adjacent to the residential premises of the respondent/landlord.

4. The above R.C.O.P. was resisted by the revision petitioner/tenant on the ground that the respondent/landlord was not in bona fide requirement of the petition premises for his additional accommodation as he has sufficient place in the existing residential premises.

5. The respondent/landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and the respondent examined himself as

6. The Rent Controller, in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 held that the petition premises is bona fide required by the respondent/landlord for his additional accommodation, taking into consideration the fact that the revision petitioners family consists of himself, his wife and four children, whose marriage has also been arranged, and thus, by order dated 29.8.1992 ordered eviction, which was, on appeal confirmed by order dated 29.2.1996 in R.C.A. No.118 of 1992, on the file of the learned Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Madurai, Hence, the above revision.

7. It is relevant to mention that, in the appeal, the revision petitioner/tenant also prayed to take notice of the subsequent events that one shop of the same premises became vacant, which was, in fact, occupied by the respondent/landlord for starting a petty shop.

8. Mr.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, contends that the authorities below ought to have specifically given a finding as to the relative hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting a decree of eviction, and that, in the absence of such a finding, the orders of eviction by the authorities below are liable to be set aside. He also places reliance of the decision in R.W.1 T.S.Sethuraman v. J.Nagalakshmi T.S.Sethuraman v. J.Nagalakshmi T.S.Sethuraman v. J.Nagalakshmi , (1998)2 MLJ. 547:(1997)3 C.T.C. 339 and Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasaiah Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasaiah Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasaiah , J.T. (1998)1 S.C. 480 in this regard.

9. Mr.S.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant, further, placing reliance on the decision in Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasaiah Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasaiah Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasaiah , J.T. (1998)1 S.C. 480 contends that the act of the respondent landlord in not occupying the shop which subsequently became vacant would prove that he is not bona fide in seeking the petition premises for additional accommodation for residential purpose.

10. Per contra, Mr.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord contends that the relative hardship sought to be decided by the authorities below while disposing the application under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, cannot be decided on delicate scale giving benefit of the slight