A landlord's eviction petition under the Tamil Nadu Buildings Act may be upheld despite minor misquotations if bonafide personal necessity is proven.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The tenant is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, ordering eviction under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

2.I have heard Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant and Mr.A.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents/caveaters.

3.Before proceeding to decide the revision on merits, it would be necessary to record that after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I had indicated that there was no merit in the revision and at that juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for time to get instructions regarding a reasonable time to vacate the tenanted premises. However, subsequently, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not been able to report to the Court with regard to the time required to vacate. Hence, I have proceeded to decide the revision on merits.

4.The RCOP was filed for eviction, on the ground of own use and occupation in respect of residential premises. The case of the landlord before the Rent Controller was that the petitioner is a tenant under the erstwhile owner, one E.N.Shahul Ahamed, for having an office in the petition premises. The respondent/landlord has purchased the property from the said E.N.Shahul Ahamed and the petitioner has also attorned tenancy in his favour.

5.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the petitioner is residing with his family in a rented building in Luz Avenue, Mylapore and his landlord is constantly pressurizing him to vacate from the tenanted premises. Hence, the petitioner sought for eviction, on the ground of own use and occupation.

6.The eviction petition was resisted by the petitioner herein contending that he is in the business of Sattakadir Law and Human Rights Journal and the petitioner conducts various seminars and programmes for NGOs. The requirement of the premises is not bonafide, as can be seen from the petition averments, where there is a clear indication that the landlord is only interested in higher rent. The petitioner alone has been maintaining the property in good condition and has incurred Rs.5 lakhs to even render the premises to a habitable condition.

7.Both the parties led evidence before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller found the requirement of the respondents to be bonafide and ordered eviction. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred a Rent Control Appeal. The Appellate Authority, on an independent consideration of the pleadings and evidence, concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner cannot seek the building, which has been let out for non-residential purposes, for residential use and the same is impermissible under the provisions of the Act. He would further state that the landlords' requirement is also not bonafide, as even in the RCOP petition, the petitioner has stated that the property would fetch a rent of Rs.75,000/- per month. He would therefore state that the Courts below have erred in appreciating the pleadings and evidence in a proper perspective. He would therefore pray for the revision petition being allowed.

9.Per contra, Mr.A.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would state that the mere quoting of wrong provision of law, namely Section 10 (3)(a)(iii) instead of 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be fatal, as in the counter affidavit also, the petitioner has not denied the fact that the premises can be used by the landlord and his family for residential use and therefore, when specific averments were m