R. Balasubramaniyam vs S.S. Pichai and P. Ilango

S. Palanivelu, J.—1. The Revision Petitioner is the tenant in the demised premises belonging to the respondents. They filed a petition for

eviction on the ground of personal occupation for the second respondent. The allegations found in the revision petition are as follows:

1.2. The petitioner is the father of the second petitioner. The property originally belonged to one Pitchai Ammal, wife of the first petitioner and the

respondent took the same on lease from the said Pichaiammal in 1986 and was paying a sum of Rs. 300/- per month on payment of Rs. 2000/- as

advance and the agreement was reduced to writing on 14.03.1986. On 05.07.1993, Pichaiammal died. Her two daughters relinquished their rights

in the property in favour of this petitioner and hence, both the petitioners are absolute owners.

1.3. The petitioner had been residing in a rented house at Sadasiva Nager, Madurai. Since the second petitioner has retired from Military service,

he requires the demised premises for his own occupation.

In the counter filed by the respondent/tenant, it is stated that since the landlords refused to receive rent, demanding the enhanced rent of Rs.

1000/-, he filed R.C.O.P. No. 276 of 1999 u/s 8(5) of the Rent Control Act to deposit the rent and he is continuing to deposit the same till now.

The landlords have already filed R.C.O.P. No. 217 of 2001 for identical relief and the same is pending and hence, the present petition is not

maintainable.

The learned Rent Controller, after hearing both sides passed an eviction order directing the tenant to vacate the premises in two months.

Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant/petitioner preferred R.C.A. No. 118 of 2004 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai,

which faced dismissal.

It is the definite case of the respondents that they require the building for the own use and personal occupation of the second respondent, who

has come down to his native, after completing his service in the Army. It is established before both the for a below. It has also been shown that the

landlords are not owning any other residential or non-residential buildings in Madurai and that presently, they are residing in a rented building. The

other contentions by the tenant were also rejected by the Courts below. The contention that the landlords are running a business by keeping milch

animals and the present building where the landlords are residing is nearer to the place of business and that the daughter of the first petitioner was

working as a teacher in a school in the rented building, were turned down by the fora below.

Significantly, it is stated that the learned Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority have uniformly held that the requirement of the

landlords is bona fide and in the considered view of this Court, such concurrent findings are more appropriate which need not be interfered with.

The eviction order passed by both the fora deserve to be confirmed and they are accordingly confirmed.

In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Time for vacating the premises is three months.