M.S. Vasudev Bhat alias M.S.V. Bhat vs Boniface and Others

S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision

petitioner.

The deceased Lourdumary as landlady filed the Rent Control Original Petition No.19 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control (District Munsif)

Court, Uthagamandalam u/s 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 to evict the tenant, viz., the revision petitioner

from the petition premises on the ground that the premises is bona fide required for own use and occupation of her married daughter Lumina

Stephen, who is the 9th respondent herein. As per the petition, the monthly rent is Rs.450/-. The landlady was residing with her son, Santhosh

Kumar, the 8th respondent herein, at Bangalore and due to misunderstanding with her son, the revision petitioner settled in Uthagamandalam in

door No.70, Ottley Road, Vannarpet, which was just vacated by the previous tenant one K. Raju 15 days before filing of the petition. It is stated

that the landlady''s daughter Lumina Stephen married to one Stephen, son of Hirudyasamy on 18.2.1995 and is residing with her husband in the

house Margret Illam bearing door No.73, Vandisolai, Uthagamandalam along with her father-in-law Hirudyasamy and his sons and daughters. The

petition premises is required to accommodate her daughter Lumina Stephen along with her husband. It is also stated that since the landlady was

aged and without support of male member and since the landlady does not own any other building excepting the petition premises and the premises

occupied by her is bearing door No.70 which is adjacent to the petition premises, the petition premises is sought for the own use and occupation

of her married daughter Lumina Stephen.

The petition was resisted admitting the tenancy relationship and stating that whenever the landlady comes to Uthagamandalam, she used to stay

in her own house and she used to come rarely to Uthagamandalam and was residing only at Bangalore and denied the other averments in the

petition. The requirement of the petition premises is challenged that the married daughter of the landlady is residing with her husband in her

father''s-in-law house. The landlady also cannot seek the premises for own use and occupation of her married daughter. The tenant also filed suit

for injunction that she should not be evicted from the premises excepting by due process of law and after filing of the said suit, the eviction petition

has been filed.

During the pendency of the said petition, the landlady died and her legal heirs have been added. The daughter of the landlady, viz., the 9th

respondent Lumina Stephen was examined as P.W.1 besides the 8th respondent Santhosh Kumar with whom the deceased landlady was residing

at Bangalore as P.W.2 and 7th respondent Glory, who is also a daughter of the landlady as P.W.3 were examined on the side of the landlady and

the revision petitioner/tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on either side. Considering such evidence, the learned

Rent Controller ordered eviction recording finding that the petition premises is required bona fide for own use and occupation of the married

daughter of the landlady Lourdumary, who filed the Rent Control Original Petition. The eviction order was confirmed in the appeal in

R.C.A.No.44 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Ooty, and such order is challenged in this Civil Revision

Petition.

The point for consideration is as to whether the eviction order as ordered by the learned Rent Controller and confirmed by the learned Rent

Control Appellate Authority that the petition premises is bona fide required for own use and occupation of the 9th respondent Lumina Stephen, the

married daughter of the landlady, who filed the Rent Control Original Petition, is proper?

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that inasmuch as the Rent Control Original petition was filed that the petition residential

premises was required for own use and occupation of the married daughter, the 9th respondent Lumina Stephen with her husband who take care

of her in her old age and who was residing in the next premises bearing door No.70 and since the landlady died during the pendency of the Rent

Control Proceeding, such requirement cannot be said to be bona fide. It is also argued that since the 9th respondent Lumina Stephen was then

married, for whom the petition premises was sought for, the petition as filed is not maintainable, since as per Section 2(6-A) of the Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the married daughter cannot be said to be a member of the family of the landlady. Further, it is also

pointed out for the revision petitioner that since the 9th respondent Lumina Stephen has been residing in her father''s-in-law house along with her

husband, the requirement as sought for is not justifiable.

The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the married daughter is also a member of the family within the meaning of ""family members"",

and as such, the requirement sought for own use and occupation of the married daughter, the 9th respondent by the deceased Lourdumary is very

much in order and since the deceased Lourdumary was residing in the next premises bearing door No.70 and was aged about 80 years at the time

of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition, it has been stated in the petition that she was without support of male member and so she wanted to

accommodate her married daughter Lumina Stephen to reside in the petition premises with her husband.

It is admitted that the 9th respondent Lumina Stephen was married to one Stephen, son of Hirudyasamy on 18.2.1995 and was residing in her

father''s-in-law house with her husband. The 9th respondent, as P.W.1 has stated in her re-examination that when she gave evidence there were

unmarried five daughters to her father-in-law and among four sons, only two got married and they have been residing in her father''s-in-law house

without dividing the same and her father-in-law own only the house bearing door No.73 in Vandisolai, Uthagamandalam. The revision

petitioner/tenant as R.W.1 has stated that previous tenant Raju vacated the house bearing door No.70 in March, 1995 in which after such eviction,

the landlady, the deceased Lourdumary was residing with her unmarried children.

In the Rent Control Original Petition as amended on the death of the deceased Lourdumary, the address of the 4th respondent herein

Pathinathan(in the C.R.P. it is stated as Backianathan), 6th respondent herein Jesintha and 8th respondent herein Santhosh Kumar is given as door

No. 70, Ottley Road, Uthagamandalam and their address was given as such in the Rent Control Appeal also as well in this Civil Revision Petition.

As such, it is clear that in the adjacent petition premises bearing door No. 70, which was occupied 15 days prior to filing of the Rent Control

Original Petition after the previous tenant Raju vacated from that premises, the landlady along with her unmarried children and on her death, the

respondents 4, 6 and 8 have been residing in the said premises. Therefore, the address of the 9th respondent Lumina Stephen is given as

Vandisolai, Uthagamandalam and as such, it is clear that the 9th respondent for whose purpose, the eviction was sought for on the ground of own

use and occupation, has been residing in her father''s-in-law house along with her husband Stephen.

It is in evidence that the landlady, the deceased Lourdumary owns the premises bearing door No. 70 which is adjacent to the petition premises

bearing door No. 69 only and she was not owning any other property excepting the said two premises. It is also in evidence that Hirudyasamy,

father-in-law of the 9th respondent is not owning any other property excepting the house bearing door No. 73, Margret Illam, Vandisolai,

Uthagamandalam in which Hirudyasamy is residing with his married sons and other children.

It is also admitted by the tenant, R.W.1 in his evidence that P.W.1 does not own any other house. Though R.W.1 stated in his evidence that

the premises bearing door No. 70 is vacant and nobody is residing there, he has given the address of the respondents 4, 6 and 8 as that of the said

premises, thereby indicating that the said respondents are residing in the said premises.

Since, the 9th respondent is residing with her husband Stephen in her father''s-in-law house along with other married sons and children of her

father-in-law, the requirement of the petition premises sought for own use and occupation to reside along with her husband is bona fide and

justifiable, in that there may not be any privacy in the house of her father-in-law. The requirement sought for own use and occupation by the 9th

respondent Lumina Stephen at the time of filing the Rent Control Original Petition is bona fide since even after the death of the deceased landlady

Lourdumary which eviction proceedings is continued by the 9th respondent along with other respondents. P.W.2 and P.W.3 also stated in their

evidence that they have no objection for the 9th respondent to occupy the petition premises along with her husband.

In Kanyalal Santhanmul - vs. - T.Raghavalu Naidu (96 Law Weekly, 686), this Court has observed:-

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control ) Act (18 of 1960) as amended by Act (23 of 1873) Sections 2(6-A) and 10(3)(a)(i) -

Requirement by the owner of a building for the use of the married daughter - Maintainability of application - ""Family"" definition of in Section 2(6-

A) Daughter includes married daughter"".

Therefore, it is clear that the landlady Lourdumary, who originally filed the Rent Control Original Petition was entitled to seek the petition premises

for own use and occupation of her then married daughter, the 9th respondent herein and on her death during the pendency of the proceedings, the

9th respondent who is also joined as one of her legal representatives being the married daughter is also entitled to continue the proceedings and as

such, the requirement of the petition premises for her own use and occupation is bona fide.

The finding recorded as such by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, in confirming the order of eviction by the learned Rent

Controller, requires no change. It is merely stated in the Rent Control Original Petition that since the landlady, Lourdumary, who was aged about

80 years at the time the petition, was without support of male members and from that it cannot be said that on her death, the eviction cannot be

ordered on the said ground.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The judgement and decree dated 23.9.1999 passed in R.C.A. No. 44

of 1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Uthagamandalam are confirmed. Time for eviction two months. Consequently, the

petition in C.M.P. No. 20644 of 1999 is closed.