Mohammed Ali Taab vs Dr. Mohammed Ali

Honourable Mr. Justice R.S. Ramanathan

The revision petitioners are the tenants occupying Shop Nos. 6 and 7 belonging to the respondent. The respondent is a Doctor and he filed

R.C.O.P.Nos. 246 and 247 of 2009 against the revision petitioners on the ground of additional accommodation stating that he is a Cardiologist

and his wife is a Gynecologist and they want to open the Clinic in their own premises and for that purpose the two shops are required and by

removing the wall in between the two shops they will get 200 Sq.ft., and they can run a Clinic in that area. The revision petitioners / tenants

contested the applications stating that there is no bona fide on the part of the land lord/ respondent and the land lord has not proved that he is

practising as a Doctor and the application was filed only with mala fide intention to evict them from the premises. The Rent Controller held that the

petition filed u/s 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for additional accommodation is not maintainable and the land

lord has proved that they required the premises for their own occupation and ordered eviction u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and the revision

petitioners filed appeals against the orders in R.C.A.No. 336 and 337 of 2010 and the learned appellate authority also confirmed the Judgements

and Decrees of the learned Rent Controller and hence these two revisions are filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the learned Rent Controller erred in ordering eviction on the ground of own

occupation after holding that the petition u/s 10(3)(c) of the Act is not maintainable. He further submitted that when the land lord filed petition

under the provisions of Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the land lord must be doing some business in the same

premises and he bona fidely requires the adjacent premises as additional accommodation and in this case it has been proved through the evidence

of land lord that he is not doing any profession and therefore the question of additional accommodation does not arise and without giving any

opportunity to the tenants to resist the case on the ground of own occupation, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of own

occupation. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted that there is no bona fide on the part of the land lord and the land lord

has also filed another application in respect of Door No. 8 and in that application he has stated that he requires 100 Sq.ft., of extent for running the

clinic and in these present two applications he claimed that he requires 200 Sq.ft., for running the Clinic and therefore there is no bona fide.

Further, in this case it is admitted that the land lord and his wife are Doctors and it is the specifc case that they want to open the Clinic in their

own premsies. No doubt, in evidence the wife of the land lord/ respondent has stated that they were practising after retirement or resignation from

their Job and in my opinion that will not help the revision petitioners, when the land lord has specifically stated that they want to open a Clinic in

their own premsies and for that purpose they require for the premises. Further, in the application filed by the land lord against another tenant he has

stated that he requires 100 Sq.ft., of extent for running the clinic and even assuming that the land lord has filed similar application against another

tenant that cannot be a consideration to deny the relief of eviction to the land lord, as in these two cases the land lord has proved his requirement.

Considering all these aspects, both the Courts have rightly ordered eviction and I do not find any infirmity in the orders of the Courts below and the

Civil Revisions are dismissed.

Considering the nature of business run by the revision petitioners and as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, I am

inclined to grant time for eviction upto 31.12.2012 on condition of filing an undertaking affidavit by the revision petitioners to vacate and hand over

vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent/ landlord on or before 31.12.2012, within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order and also on condition of paying the admitted rent regularly without fail to the respondent/ landlord till they vacate and

hand over vacant possession of the property. If the revision petitioners commit default either in paying the rent or in filing the undertaking affidavit

as stated supra, it is open to the respondent/ landlord to take steps to execute the order as ordered by the Courts below.

With the above direction, the Civil Reivion Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.