VASUDEVAN Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A building bearing Door No. 24, Kaseem Ali Street, Triplicane, Madras, originally belonged to one Jayammal. In 1965, she settled this property jointly in favour of her daughter Prema and her son Vasudevan. Subsequently, in 1967, Prema died, leaving two children of hers as her heirs. In consequence, the building came to be jointly owned by Vasudevan and his sister's children. The building was under the occupation of one Ramachandran as a tenant. Vasudevan, however, required the building for purposes of personal occupation. He consequently applied to the Rent Controller for an order evicting the tenant from the premises under section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The tenant resisted the eviction proceedings on the score that one Radhakrishnan was the person to whom he was paying rent and Vasudevan was not entitled to demand or receive rent from him. The Rent Controller negatived this contention. Addressing himself to the ground put forward in the petition for eviction of the tenant, the Rent Controller found that there was evidence to show that Vasudevan and his deceased sister's children were now living in rented premises, that they did not have any other house of their own in the city and that their requirement of the building under the tenant"s occupation was for bona fide personal residence. The Rent Controller accordingly passed an order of eviction against the tenant.

(2.) ON appeal by the tenant, the appellate authority agreed with the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller on the subject of bona fide requirement for personal residence on the part of the landlord. "Nevertheless, the appellate authority allowed the tenant's appeal and dismissed the eviction petition, on a technical plea raised by the tenant as to the maintainability of the eviction petition. This objection which was mooted for the first time in the appeal, was to the effect that since the building was jointly owned by Vasudevan and his sister's children Vasudevan as one of the co-owners should have obtained the written consent of the children, who were the other co-owners, for filing the eviction petition, and the petition as filed, without obtaining such consent, was not entertainable.

(3.) IN this revision petition, the landlord challenges the view of the appellate authority on the question of maintainability of the eviction petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that section 10 (8) of the Act relied on by the appellate authority has no application to the present case.