M S VASUDEV BHAT ALIAS Vs. BONIFACE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner.

(2.) 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 under Section 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.

(3.) 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.