The respondents in R.C.O.P No. 668 of 1985 are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P
2. The petitioner filed the R.C.O.P for evic tion against the respondents under S. 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows: —
The first respondent is the tenant of the petitioner in respect of two rooms, one hall, verandah-cum-kitchen, bath room etc., in the front portion of the building bearing door No. 24, Thoppa Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras-13 on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/—. The second respondent is in occupation of two rooms, one hall and verandah in the rear portion on a monthly rental of Rs. 1610/—. The petitioners husband is in Singapore, Malacoa and Malaysia and he has decided to leave Singapore, Malacca and Malaysia once and for all and to settle down in Madras. The petitioner's mother-in-law is about 90 years old and the petitioner along with her mother-in-law and her matured daughter is residing in Avoor village. The petitioner's daughter has to be married and the prospects of getting good alliance will be bright if the petitioner settles down in Madras along with her daughter. Further the petitioner is a sick person and she needs immediate treatment in Madras. The petitioner's son is an automobile Engineer and he wants to set up his business in Madras City near the petition mentioned premises. The petitioner requires the portions in the occupation of the respondents for her own occupation and the occupation of the members of her family. The petitioner's requirement of the petition mentioned premises, for her own occupation and for the occupation of the members of her family is bona fide.
3. The respondents resisted the application for eviction contending as follows: — There is ab solutely no necessity for the petitioner and her mother-in-law for leaving the village and for com ing over to Madras. The entire upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building is in the occupation of the petitioner. If the petitioner desires to live with her husband and mother-in-law she can always do so in the upstairs portion of the building in question. The petitioner's requirement of the portions in the occupation of the respondents for her own use is not bona fide. The petition filed under S. 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act is not maintainable, because, the petitioner is already in occupation of a portion of the premises viz., the entire first floor of the premises.
4. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the respondents and dismissed and petition for eviction. As against the order of the Rent Controller the petitioner filed an appeal R.C.A No. 414 of 1988 before the Appellate Authority (8th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The Appellate Authority on a consideration of the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner's requirement of the demised portions for her occupation is bona fide. Consequently the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Appellate Authority the respondents have preferred the present civil revision petition.
5. Mr. Kishore, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that admittedly the Upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building is vacant; the petitioner has not given any reason for not occupying the upstairs portion and, therefore, the petitioner's requirement of the demised portions for her occupation and the occupation of the members of the family is not bona fide. The question we have to examine in this civil revision petition is, whether the petitioner's requirement of the demised portions for her occupation and the occupation of the members of her family is bona fide. P.W.I, is the power of attorney agent of the petitioner and who happens to be her husband's brother. He has stated in his evidence that the petitioner's husband, who is carrying on the business in Singapore has decided to windup his business at Singapore and to come down to Madras to settle down at Madras permanently along with the other members or his family; the petitioner's mother-in-law is 93 years old and as she is not keeping good health, she has come down to Madras and is living with the petitioner at door No. 93, Thoppa Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras-13; that the said house No. 93, Thoppa Mudali Street, which is in the occupation of petitioner, her mother-in-law and daughter does not belong to the petitioner; the petitioners son is an automobile engineer and the petitioner want to set up a business for her son in Madras City and in those circumstances, the petitioner's requirement of the demised portions For her own occupation and for the occupation of the members of his family is bona fide. Ex. P9 series are the letters received by the petitioner and Ex. P9 series go to show that the petitioner, at the time of hearing of the R.C.O.P, was living at door No. 93, Thoppa Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras-13. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that no value can be attached to Ex. P9 series because they came into existence during the pendency of the proceedings. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. Before the Appellate Authority the petitioner filed M.P No. 270 of 1989 requesting the Appellate Authority to receive a relation card issued to the petitioner, the certificate issued to the petitioner's daughter by Dr. Ratnavel Sub-ramaniam Girls Higher Secondary School, Muthialpet, Madras-1, the community certificate issued to the petitioner's daughter and the certificate issued by the bank to show that the petitioner after filing of the R.C.O.P for eviction has permanently settled down in Madras. The Appellate Authority dismissed the petition M.P No. 270 of 1989. The Appellate Authority, committed an error in dismissing the petition to receive the documents referred to above as additional evidence, particularly when the Appellate Authority found it necessary to refer to those documents for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's requirement of the demised portions for her own occupation is bona fide.
6. The petitioner has filed an application C.M.P No. 6440 of 1990 in this civil revision petition seeking permission to receive (a) a xerox copies of the first two pages of the record books in botany, pathology and physics for the academic year 1989-90 submitted by petitioner's daughter duly authenticated and counter-signed by the External Examiner and Principal of School viz., Dr. Ratnavel Subramaniam Girl's Higher Secondary School, Madras-1, (b) xerox copy of the hall ticket issued by the said school, to petitioner's daughter; (c) xerox copy of the card received by the petitioner's daughter A. Thahira Banu showing that she was promoted to 12th Standard in 1989 and (d) ration card as additional evidence in the civil revision petition. The documents referred above relate to certain subsequent events which this Court can take into consideration for deciding the question whether the petitioner's requirement of the demised portions for her own occupation and the occupation of the members of her own family is bona fide. This court can take into consideration the subsequent events in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1985-1-M.L.J 1 SC. The documents referred to above and filed as additional evidence are necessary for deciding the question involved in this civil revision petition. Mr. Kishore, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the application to receive the documents as additional evidence in the civil revision petition contending that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and the petition to receive documents as additional evidence in the civil revision petition filed under S. 25 of the Act is not maintainable. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. Krishnamurthy v. Jagat Textiles 19811 MLJ 394 =94L.W 160 this court has held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the revision petition filed before this court under S. 25 of the Act. The above decision has been subsequently approved by the Division Bench of this Court in Arya Vaisya Samajam v. Murugesa Mudaliar 1990 TLNJ 82 -1990-1-L.W. 645. In view of the above legal position, it has to be held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the revision petition filed before this Court under S. 25 of the Act. From this it follows that a petition filed under O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C, to receive documents as additional documents in the revision petition filed under S. 25 of the Act is maintainable and the documents can be received as additional evidence provided the requirements of O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C, are satisfied. In this case, as already pointed out, the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence are necessary for deciding the issue involved in this case. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has produced the very same documents before the Appellate Authority by filing a petition in M.P No. 27Q of 1989 to receive them as additional evidence and the Appellate Authority though it referred to those documents produced as additional evidence while deciding the RCA committed an error in rejecting the application to receive additional evidence. In these circumstances, C.M.P No. 6440 of 1990 is allowed and the documents mentioned therein are received as additional evidence in this civil revision petition.
7. The petitioner has produced (a) xerox copies of the first two pages of the record books in botany, zoology, pathology and physics for the academic year 1989-90 submitted by the petitioner's daughter duly authenticated and countersigned by the External Examiner and the Principal of the School, viz., Dr. Ratnavel Subramaniam Girls Higher Secondary School, Madras-1. (b) xerox copy of the hall ticket issued by the said school to the petitioner's daughter Thahira Banu (c) xerox copy of the card showing that the petitioner's daughter Thahira Banu was promoted to 12th standard in the year 1989. The above documents go to show that the petitioner's daughter is studying in Dr. Ratnavel Subramaniam Girls Higher Secondary School, Madras-1. The petitioner has also produced the ration card to show that the petitioner is now living in the house bearing door No. 30, Thoppa Mudali Street, Madras-13 along with the other members of her family. ExP9 series and the documents produced as additional evidence go to show that the petitioner along with her son, daughter and mother-in-law has come down from the village Avoor and settled down at Madras in the house bearing door No. 30, Thoppa Mudali Street, Madras-13. The specific case of the petitioner is that except the petition mentioned building she does not own any other residential house in the city of Madras, The respondents have not produced any document show that the petitioner is occupying a house of her own in Madras.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the evidence of PW1 shows that the upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building is kept vacant by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is keeping the upstairs portion vacant shows that her requirement of the demised portions for her occupation is not bona fide. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the respondents relies on the decision in Amarjit Singh v. Khatoon Quamarain 1986 4 SCC 736 I am unable to accept the above contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly the mother-in-law of the petitioner, who is living with the petitioner is aged 93 years and the case of the petitioner is that because of the old age of the mother-in-law of the petitioner, she is not in a position to occupy the upstairs portion of the petition mentioned buildings. The above reason given by the petitioner's counsel for the petitioner not occupying the first floor portion of the petition mentioned building is valid and deserves acceptance. Therefore, the petitioner has got a valid reason for not occupying the first floor portion of the petition mentioned building. In Sundara Gopal v. Subramaniam 1985-1-M.L.J 1S.C this court, dealing with a similar situation observed as follows:
“The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act states that if the landlord is in occupation of a building of his own, then, the bar to apply for eviction of a tenant in another building of his own would come for adjudication. A building may be kept vacant for various reasons. It may be for the reason that it is unfit for occupation. It may be for sentimental reasons and for other causes. It is now well established in our court at any rate that it is not for the tenant to dictate as to which of the houses of the landlord should be asked for his own use and occupation. Unless it is established that the landlord is physically in possession of a building of his own, it would be idle to contend that he is in occupation of a vacant building.”
The evidence of PW1 shows that the petitioner is prepared to give the first floor portion of the petition mentioned building to the respondents for their occupation if they vacate the portions in the ground floor. Even during the course of the arguments in the civil revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner made it clear before this court that even now the petitioner is willing to offer the upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building to the respondents provided they vacated the ground floor portions in their occupation. This offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner only goes to show that the petitioner has valid reasons for not occupying the first floor portion of the petition mentioned building and the requirement of the ground floor portion of her own occupation and for the occupation of the members of her family is bona fide. The principles laid down by the Court in Amarjit Singh v. Khatoon Quamarain 1986 4 SCC 736 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents have no application to the facts of the present case, because, the petitioner in this case is keeping the first floor portion vacant long before the filing of the R.C.O.P and she gives a valid reason for not occupying the first floor portion viz., the petitioner's mother-in-law is aged 93 years and she not in a position to occupy the first floor portion.
9. As already referred, to the evidence in this case discloses that the petitioner's mother-in-law is aged 93 years and the petitioner has settled down at Madras from the village Avoor along with her mother-in-law for giving her treatment in Madras, for searching a proper match for her daughter and for setting up a business for her son in Madras. The evidence in this case also discloses that the petitioner's daughter is studying in Dr. Ratnavel Subramaniam Girls Higher Secondary School, Madras-1, and the petitioner along with the members of her family are living in the house bearing door No. 30, Thoppa Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras-13, which does not belong to the petitioner. There is further evidence in this case to show that the petitioner's husband is also planning to wind up his business in Singapore and to settle down in Madras along with the other members of his family. In view of the evidence available in this case as referred to above it has to be held that the petitioner's requirement of the demised portions for her occupation and for the occupation of the members of her family is bona fide. On the basis of the evidence available in this case the Appellate Authority rightly held that the petitioner's requirement of the demised portion for her own occupation and for the occupation of the members of her family is bona fide. There is no infirmity in the finding of the Appellate Authority. There are no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
After the pronouncement of the orders in the CRP today. Mr. H. Kishore, the learned counsel for the petitioners (Tenants) requests six months time to enable the petitioners (tenants) to vacate the premises. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners (tenants) are granted four months time for vacating the premises on condition that they file an affidavit before this court within four weeks undertaking to vacate the premises after the expiry of the period of four months referred above
RR/VCS