G.N. Chakkarapany Chetty and Sons Private Ltd. vs Yenarkay Ravindran

Bellie, J.—This civil revision petition is directed against an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming an order of the Rent

Controller ordering eviction of the tenant on a petition filed by the landlord for his own use and occupation of the premises u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

The landlord (respondent herein) has filed the petition for eviction of the tenant (petitioner herein) on the ground that he is manufacturing safety

matches in Sivakasi and he is doing business in safety matches throughout India and for his business in Tirunelveli he requires his petition premises

for using it as a godown for storing safety matches.

The petition was opposed by the tenant on the ground that the premises is not required by the landlord and his claim that he requires it for using

it as a godown for storing safety matches is not bona fide and this claim of the landlord is a false one intended for the only purpose of evicting the

tenant from the premises.

It appears the Rent Controller dismissed the landlord''s petition, but on appeal the petition was allowed and there was a revision petition filed in

this Court in C.R.P.No.3614 of 1984 and in that the learned single judge observed that from the records it is obvious that both sides have

proceeded on the footing that the landlord need not prove bona fides for the purpose of getting an order of eviction u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act but

now it has been held by the Supreme Court in Hameedia Hardware Stores, represented by its partner S. Peer Mohammed Vs. B. Mohan Lal

Sowcar, , that a landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from a non-residential premises u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, to succeed in his petition, should

prove that he bona fide requires the premises in addition to proving the other ingredients referred to in that Sub-section, and the learned Judge

remanded the matter for fresh disposal giving liberty to the parties to adduce further evidence.

After this remand, it appears, both sides have adduced further evidence and on consideration of the entire evidence the Rent Controller held that

the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and therefore he ordered eviction. This was confirmed by the Rent

Control Appellate Authority. Against that the present civil revision petition is filed.

It is now argued for the tenant-the petitioner herein, that for using a premises as a depot for storing safety matches one should obtain Municipal

licences as well as excise licence, and the landlord has not obtained any such licence and this would show that there is no bona fide in his claim.

From the remand order of the learned single Judge it is seen that this very point was argued before him, and it was also argued that the accountant

of the landlord has in fact deposed to the effect that Municipal licence and excise licence should be obtained. On the side of the landlord it was

contended that there is no rule that requires licence either in the municipal law or excise law. The learned Judge observed that:

If there is no rule actually any statement made by a witness with regard to the existence of the rule cannot be of any use. If there is a rule that can

be produced before the Court and the court can act upon the basis that such a rule exists.

If there is any rule in the municipal law or the excise law that requires licence the tenant could have brought it to the notice of the Rent Controller.

The Rent Controller has expressly stated that no such rule was produced. Before the Appellate Authority also no such rule seems to have been

produced. On the evidence on record both the courts below have held that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and

occupation.

Now in the revision, it is contended that there is a rule both in the municipal law and excise law that requires licence. If that is the case why these

rules have not been produced before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority? Therefore this contention of the tenant now in the revision

cannot be countenanced.

Further if actually there is any rule that requires municipal licence or excise licence and no such licence was obtained by the landlord, from that

alone it cannot be said that he does not bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. I wonder how, refusing to give possession

to the landlord, the tenant can say that he (landlord) has not obtained municipal licence or excise licence for using the premises as depot for storing

matches. Now the concurrent finding of the courts below that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation is a

finding of fact and that cannot be interfered with in the revision. In this view of the matter I find no merit in the civil revision petition. Hence it is

dismissed with costs.