- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) The appellants before us are the landlords. They filed an eviction application under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (the Act) on the ground that the same was required for bona fide personal use Of one of the landlords in the sense that his son was to start business in the said shop. The respondent-tenant (since dead and represented through his legal representatives) opposed the application on various grounds. The Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered the ejectment of the tenant. The Lower Appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. The High court, however, reversed the finding of the two courts on the short ground that there was no pleading to the effect that the son of the landlord did not own any non-residential premises of his own in terms of Section 10 (3 (a) (iii) of the Act.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case the absence of pleadings on the point has not caused any prejudice to the respondents. The son of the appellant-landlord appeared before the Rent Controller as Public Witness 1. In his examination-in-chief, he stated as under : "I do not have any other place excepting the shop mentioned in the petition. Now I am working under a third party for salary. We demanded the respondent to vacate the petition mentioned property at the time of the expiry of the agreement. The shop mentioned in the petition is required for my own use. "it is thus obvious that there was clear evidence before the Rent Controller to the effect that the landlords did not have any other shop except the shop in dispute. The tenant, therefore, fully knew the case set up by the appellants and which he was to meet by producing evidence in support of his defence. Even otherwise the question raised and decided in favour of the respondents was not raised either before the Rent Controller or before the Lower Appellate court. We are of the view that the High court was not justified in raking up the question by looking into the pleadings and reappreciating the evidence. In the facts of this case the High court fell into patent error in reversing the findings reached by the two courts below.;