Radhakrishnan vs Seethalakshmi

Sivasubramaniam, J.—The unsuccessful landlord in H.R.C. 2948 of 1981 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (X Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras and in the appeal in R.C.A. 885 of 1982 on the file of the appellate authority (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, is the petitioner in this revision petition. The respondent is the tenant. The petitioner-landlord filed the petition in H.R.C. 2948 of 1981 seeking eviction of the respondent tenant on the ground that he is desirous of having his sons and daughters to live with him in the same house, that he bona fide requires the petition premises by way of additional occupation to set up his four sons and daughters in it and that the tenant is not regular in payment of rents. The tenant resisted the application contending that he had paid rent upto date at the rate of Rs. 100 per month, that she had not committed wilful default in the payment of rent and that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide.

The learned Rent Controller, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the tenant has not committed wilful default in the payment of rents and that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. As against the said order, the landlord preferred the appeal in R.C.A. 885 of 1982 and the appellate authority also came to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against this decision, the landlord has filed the above revision petition.

Mr. P.M. Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits, that the sons, daughters and the wife of the landlord have filed affidavits before the appellate authority stating that they are in good terms with the landlord and therefore, the appellate authority ought to have accepted the same and held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. On the other hand, Mr. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the landlord has not established his bona fides in any sense of the term. He drew my attention to the various admissions made by the landlord which clearly shows that none of the members of the family are living with him now. A perusal of the evidence shows that the daughters have been married and are living with their husbands, and therefore, they are not expected to live with their father, the petitioner herein. It is also in evidence that the sons have already been married and they are living separately elsewhere. One of the sons is living in Salem. He has also admitted that his wife is also not living with him and that she has been living away for more than two years. Apart from that, it is seen that the tenant, who was occupying two portions in the building, bad surrendered a portion of the building to the landlord to enable him to have comfortable living and that was the reason why the tenant was paying only Rs. 100 instead of the original rent of Rs. 200. It is also in evidence that recently another portion in the building fell vacant which was leased out to somebody else. If really be was in need of additional accommodation, he would not have let out the said portion that was vacated by another tenant. The said portion was let out in the month of July 1981. This also shows that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. There is one other circumstance which has to be taken note of while considering the question of bona fides. It is in evidence that there was prior enmity between the parties. In the year 1979, the landlord refused to receive the rents and therefore the tenant had to deposit the rent into court. Again, since the landlord interfered with the amenities in the building, the tenant filed a petition to restore the amenities and the same was also allowed. The said conduct of the landlord also will show that the present requirement cannot be said to be bona fide.

There is one other ground on which the landlord should fail, in this revision petition. He has not at all pleaded in the petition about the relative hardship that would be caused to the parties nor proved the fact that the relative hardship would be more on his part than on the part of the tenant. S. 10(3)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 contemplates that the landlord should prove that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. This Court has held in Annakili Amma v. Hussain and Hassan 97 L.W. 116 = 1984-1 M.L.J. 340, that in order to enable the Rent Controller to give effect to the proviso to S. 10(3)(e) that the hardship that may be caused to the tenant by an order of eviction will outweigh the advantage to the landlord, it would be necessary for the parties to plead so and place necessary materials in support thereof. In this case, I find that no such pleading is found in the eviction petition nor is there any evidence on this aspect. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner offers to let in evidence on this aspect, I feel that it cannot be allowed at this stage. On this ground alone the eviction petition should be dismissed.

In so far as wilful default in the payment of rents is concerned, both the authorities below have concurrently held that the tenant has not committed any wilful default and, therefore, rightly the said aspect was not pressed before this Court seriously. Hence the said finding has to be confirmed. Taking note of all the relevant circumstances, the authorities below have concurrently held that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the said concurrent findings of fact. There are no merits in this civil revision petition and hence it is dismissed. No costs. However, I make it clear that this will not preclude the petitioner from seeking additional accommodation as and when the members of the family begin to live with him.