R SAMBANDAN ALIAS BABU Vs. S KRISHNAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed by the appellant/tenant against the judgment and decree dated 23.1.1996 and made in R.C.A.No.545 of 1994 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the order and decretal order dated 29.4.1994 and made in R.C.O.P.No.356 of 1991 on the file of the Rent Controller/XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

(2.) THE petitioner in the rent control petition who is the respondent herein is the owner and landlady of the premises described in the petition and it is a portion of the premises bearing Door No.37, Perumal Koil St., Choolaimedu, Madras-94. THE respondent in the rent control petition, who is the revision petitioner herein is in possession and enjoyment of the said premises in a monthly rent of Rs.210, excluding electricity charges. THE tenancy in according to the English calendar month and the premises in question is let out for residential purposes. THE revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1.11.89 to 31.12.1990 and for the month of January, 1991 also. THE petition of the respondent herein has passed a course holding and her second son has secured certificate in diesel mechanism. THEy are in search of a job and in order to help them to secure a job, the respondent herein intended to set up her family at Madras in the demised premises. THE respondent herein, therefore, requires the demised premises for her own use and occupation and such requirement is bona fide. It is under the said circumstances the respondent herein sought for eviction of the revision petitioner from the demised premises.

(3.) THE evidence of P.W.1 would disclose that the house with thatched roof was constructed by the respondent herein after the partition under Ex.P.1, dated 29.9.1976. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.1 that the above said light roof in the demised premises was put up after changing the thatched roof in the year 1989, by the respondent herein. THE evidence of P.W.2 would show that the respondent herein has put up the house with thatched roof, within one year or six months from the date of allotment of the property to her in the partition. It is also her evidence that well was dug and bathroom was erected at the time of construction of the said house, by the respondent herein. P.W.3 Thiru S. Murugesan is a resident of Kancheepuram, doing work in changing roofs of houses. His evidence would disclose that there was a contract for change of thatched roof with light roof for a coolie of Rs.5,300 in September, 1989, for the demised property and accordingly he had put up light roof in the demised premises. It is also his case that 110 light roof sheets were purchased for the putting up of the abovesaid light roof for the demised premises. THEre is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.3 with regard to the putting up of light roof to the demised premises, after receiving a sum of Rs.5300 as coolie. It is based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the court below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the construction of the house with thatched roof and subsequent change of the roof with light roof could have been done only by the respondent herein, disbelieving the oral evidence of R.W.1 Thiru Sambandam and also Ex.R.15 (Series), xerox copies of the bills for the alleged purchase light roof sheets. While coming to such conclusion, the fact of the revision petitioner not producing the original of Ex.P.15 (Series) and the non-production of any evidence for the construction of the house with thatched roof by his grand father or father, except the interested testimony of R.W.1, have been taken into consideration by the Courts below and there is nothing wrong on the part of the courts below in disbelieving the evidence of R.W.1, who has stated that the building without light roof in the demised premises was constructed by the grand father or father of the revision petitioner and light roof was put by the revision petitioner. THErefore, the respondent herein has produced acceptable evidence, while not so by the revision petitioner, for the construction of the superstructure with light roof in the demised premises. It is under the said circumstances the Courts below have some to the conclusion that the respondent herein is the owner of the demised premises.