Messrs. Tuli Brothers Madras 1 vs G.R. Srinivasulu

Gokulakrishnan, J.—The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant under S. 10(3)

(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the Act) on the ground that the

petitioner is a tenant of one shed (garage) in the front portion of the ground floor of premises No. 216, Thambu Chetti St., Madras-1, on a monthly

rent of Rs. 200 payable on the subsequent English calendar month, that the landlord requires the same for keeping his car and motor cycle and that

the said garage is required for his personal use. The tenant contended that the portion in question is not a garage, that the tenant is conducting

business as and from 1970 in this portion, that the landlord is not in need of the said premises and that there are no bona fides in the prayer made

by the landlord. Both the authorities below ordered eviction holding that the portion under the occupation of the tenant is a garage and that the

requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is as against this order the present civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant. Mr. S.

Sampathkumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant submits that the car and the motor cycle belonged to the partnership firm and not

to the landlord and as such, he is not entitled to ask for the premises in question to park these vehicles. The learned counsel further submits that the

portion in question is not a garage, that it was not adapted for such use and hence, the petition under S. 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act is not maintainable.

I have carefully gone through the pleadings, evidence and the orders of the authorities below. S. 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act reads as follows--

A landlord may, subject to the provisions of Cl. (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the

building.....In case, it is a non-residential building, which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use, if the landlord

requires it for his own use or for the use of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying any such building in the

city, town or village concerned which is his own.

P.W. 1 has given evidence to the effect that the car and the motor cycle are in his use and that his son also uses the same. It is his further evidence

that his brother-in-law was originally keeping his vehicle in the said portion.

It is clear from S. 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act, extracted above, that the benefit of that section is available to a landlord for keeping the vehicles. The

vehicles in question are in the possession of the landlord. The ownership of the vehicles need not come in the way of asking the portion in question

for his own use under S. 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the prayer for keeping the car and the motor cycle in the premises in question can be

sustained even assuming that the ownership of the vehicle is not in the name of the landlord.

As regards the second contention put forth by Mr. S. Sampathkumar, learned counsel for the tenant regarding the building in question being

''adapted for such use'' a single Judge of this. Court in Jawanthraj Mehta v. Ramachandra Chetti, 78 L.W. 68 (S.N.) C.R.P 1294 and 1893 of

1962, dated 4th August, 1965, had occasion to consider the word ''adapt'' occurring in this section. The learned Judge has observed as follows:-

''Adapt'' ordinarily means suitable. If the premises in question could be remodeled or converted or made fit for the purpose of keeping a vehicle, it

can be said to be adapted for such use.

This definition is wider in concept and definitely the present case can easily come under the definition of ''garage'' visualised under S. 10(3)(a)(ii) of

the Act. In this case, the portion in dispute is a garage and it is fit to park car and motor cycle. The decision cited above applies on all fours to the

facts of the present case. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by

the two authorities below. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Taking into consideration the fact

that the tenant is running a business in the premises in question from the year 1970 onwards, the revision petitioner-tenant is granted three months

time from this date to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in his occupation to the respondent-landlord.