AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
271 paragraphs · 6,254 wordsV. Bakthavatsalu, J.—The landlord is the revision petitioner. The landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.2362 of 92 u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lese and Rent Control) Act 18/60 (in short ''the Act'').
The averments contained in the petition are as follows:-
The first respondent is the tenant under the petitioner for the entire house and premises No.13, Purasawalkam High Road, Madras -7 which is
owned by the petitioner, on a monthly tent of Rs.1800/-. The second and third respondents are unauthorised sub-tenants of the first respondent
occupying different portions of the ground floor. The petitioner is running a printing press and book binding business under the name and style
N.E. Printers"" and another business of laser type setting under the name and style ""N.E. Enterprises"" in the major portion of the ground floor and
first floor of premises No.2, Chetty Street, Saidapet, which is a rented building on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. Even though the said premises is
owned by his father/landlord, the petitioner is paying rent to his father for the portion occupied by the petitioner in the ground floor and first floor.
His father/landlord is requiring the building and pressing him to pay the enhanced rent of Rs.3000/- per month or vacate the premises. His father
has got two other sons and a daughter. The petitioner is married and living separately. Their relationship is not cordial. Therefore, the petitioner
bonafide require the petition mentioned premises, which is completely non-residential for his non-residential purpose. The petitioner is not in
occupation of any other non-residential building of his own. The petitioner has been requesting the first respondent to vacate the premises for the
last seven months and the first respondent has been evading. Hence, the petition is filed for eviction.
The first respondent filed counter stating that the allegation in the petition that the petitioner requires the entire premises for his own occupation
to run his business is not true and that the above allegations are invented with a view to harass this respondent and get him evicted some how or
other and let out the premises to somebody else on a highly enhanced rent and that the petitioner is adopting methods with a view to harass this
respondent and that the respondent has invested huge amount for improvements of the building in the year 1985 and that the petitioner does not at
all require the building bonafide for his business.
The second respondent filed counter stating that he is not the sub-tenant under the first respondent and that he is employed as a supervisor on a
monthly salary and that he is working under the first respondent since January 1986.
The third respondent filed counter stating that he is not sub-tenant under the first respondent or the second respondent and that he is an
employee under the first respondent and that he is looking after a betel nut shop in the petition mentioned premises on a monthly salary.
The landlord/revision petitioner also filed another R.C.O.P. in R.C.O.P.No.2363 of 1992 against the same respondents
The case of the landlord is as follows:-
The petition mentioned premises i.e., No.13, Purusawalkam High Road, Madras - 7 was let out to the first respondent only for the purpose of
running a hotel. Last year, he ceased to occupy the petition mentioned premises and parted with possession of the same to the second respondent
without any justifiable reasons and therefore, the respondents are liable to be evicted u/s 10(2)(vi) of the Act. One month later, the first respondent
unauthorisedly sublet the entire premises and parted with possession of the same in favour of the second respondent without the consent of the
petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are liable to be evicted u/s 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. The second respondent in turn made unauthorised
enclosure in front portion of the ground floor and converted the same into a bigger room and sub-let to the third respondent, who is running a oil
mill stores in the said bigger room. Similarly, he made another enclosure in the eastern portion of the ground floor and converted the same into a
smaller room and sub-let the same to the third respondent, who is running a betel nut shop without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner.
Therefore, the respondents are liable to be evicted u/s 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. The entire premises was let out to the first respondent only for the
purpose of running the hotel. The second respondent with the directions of the first respondent converted the eastern side of the front portion of the
ground floor into oil mill store and betel nut shop. Therefore, the respondents are liable to be evicted on the ground of conversion of premises and
use of the same for the purpose other than for which the premises was let out and therefore, the respondents are liable to be evicted u/s 10(2)(ii)
(b) of the Act. By virtue of putting up one bigger room and smaller room in the front portion of the ground floor illegally and unauthorisedly, the
respondents have committed acts of waste which are likely to impair the value and utility of the building. Hence, the respondents are liable to be
evicted u/s 10(2)(iii) of the Act.
The case of the first respondent is as follows:-
The premises was occupied by his father late Abdul Khader in the year 1937 as a tenant under Appruthammal, the grand mother of the petitioner
and was running a hotel business as well as a stationery shop in front of the premises and a betel nut shop also. On the death of his father, this
respondent occupied the premises and is running the business by himself as a tenant since 1974. The rent was increased from Rs.350/- to Rs.800/-
which was increased to Rs.1800/- from January 1986. This respondent reopened the hotel business after effecting improvements and making
repairs. The allegation that the first respondent ceased to occupy the premises last year is not true. He never parted with possession to anybody
much less to the second respondent. The second respondent is an employee under him since January 1986 and was looking after his business of
hotel as a Supervisor. Neither the second respondent nor this respondent made any enclosure in the front portion of the ground floor and
converted it into a room. The alleged oil stores and betel nut shop are run by this respondent himself and the shop in front portion was converted in
the year 1960 by the previous landlord, while the father of this respondent was running the business and stationery stores is also run by his late
father and subsequently, by this respondent since 1974. The respondent never committed any act of waste which are to likely to impair the value of
the premises and instead this respondent made huge improvements by making repairs, decorations, including putting up a terraced first floor in the
tiled premises let out to him by spending huge amounts with the consent approval and authority under the petitioner and his father.
The second respondent filed counter stating that he is not a sub-tenant under the first respondent and that he is employed as a Supervisor. The
third respondent filed counter stating that he is an employee under the first respondent and that he is not a sub-tenant.
Both R.C.O.Ps were jointly tried by the Rent Controller. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord and his father were examined as P.Ws 1 and
2 and Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked. On the side of the respondents, the first respondent has been examined as R.W.1 and he has marked
Exs.R-1 to R-12. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller allowed both the petitions and directed the tenant to
vacate the property by granting three months time. Aggrieved by the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.2362 of 1992, the revision petitioner filed
R.C.A.No.696 of 95. The landlord aggrieved by the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.2363 of 92 has filed appeal in R.C.A.No.697 of 95. The
Appellate Authority also permitted the tenant to adduce additional evidence and Exs.R-14 to R-16 were marked by the Appellate Authority. On a
consideration of oral and documentary evidence and additional evidence, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeals setting aside the order of
eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the said findings of the Appellate Authority, these two separate revisions are filed.
The revision petitioner/landlord has raised the following contentions in both the revisions:-
The appellate Authority has committed error in admitting the additional evidence, especially when the respondent admitted in cross examination
before the Rent Controller that he has no documents. Though the tenant had ample opportunity to produce additional documents before the Rent
Controller, he failed to produce the same. The findings of the Appellate Authority that the additional documents would strengthen the plea of the
tenant cannot be sustained and the above documents are not at all relevant to this case. As the revision petitioner is carrying on business on rent in
another building which did not belong to him, the Appellate Authority ought to have held that the claim of the petitioner/landlord is bonafide. The
evidence of P.W.2, the father of the revision petitioner, was not properly considered by the Appellate Authority. The reasons given by the
Appellate Authority for negativing the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained at all. The Appellate Authority ought to have accepted the plea of
the tenant regarding the closure of the premises for a certain period. It is admitted by the tenant that the premises was kept locked for more than
five months. The above aspect of the case was not considered by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority erred in holding that as per
Exs.R-12 to R-16, K. Balan is shown to be receiving salary from the first respondent. The evidence on record will show that the first respondent
was not carrying on business and that he has parted with possession. The Appellate Authority erred in holding that Ex.C-1 will not prove that the
petition mentioned premises was sub-let. It is significant to note that the second and third respondents were not examined on the side of the first
respondent. The petitioner/landlord has established that the petition mentioned premises is being used for different purposes. The Appellate
Authority failed to note that even though the plea of the landlord that the tenant has committed act of waste was not accepted by the Rent
Controller, the above question can be raised in the appeal and therefore, the Appellate Authority ought to have given a finding on the above aspect
of the case. It is not proved that the tenant obtained permission of the landlord to make alterations and repairs. Therefore, the Appellate Authority
ought to have held that the respondent committed act of waste and damages. The case of the petitioner and the evidence of P.W.1 that the first
respondent sub-let the premises to respondents 2 and 3 has not been properly considered by the Appellate Authority and that there are no
grounds to reverse the order of the eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the landlord is only carrying on business in his father''s
property and that the very fact that he has filed number of petitions against the tenant for eviction will show that his requirement is not bonafide and
that the Appellate Authority on consideration of the materials on record has come to the correct conclusion in holding that the requirement of the
building by the petitioner for personal occupation is not bonafide. Regarding the sub-lease and acts of waste etc., it is contended by the learned
senior counsel that the Appellate Authority has given cogent reasons for negativing the claim of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel also pointed
the errors committed by the Rent Controller in appreciating the evidence. It is contended that as the judgment of the Appellate Authority is based
on appreciation of evidence and facts, the same cannot be interfered with in the revision. Learned senior counsel appearing for the landlord and the
learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon number of decisions to substantiate their respective contentions.
In R.C.O.P.No.2363 of 1992 one of the grounds taken by the landlord to evict the tenant is u/s 10(2)(iii) of the Act. It is alleged in the petition
that by virtue of putting up one big room and small room in front portion of the ground floor, the respondent committed acts of waste. The Rent
Controller has held that the tenant has not committed acts of waste and that therefore, he cannot be evicted under the above ground. Learned
counsel for the tenant relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to show that the version of the petitioner that the tenant is guilty of acts of waste cannot be
accepted. P.W.1, has stated in cross examination that he does not know that the building sustained damages. However, he has admitted that the
value of the building has been increased. It is vaguely alleged in the petition that the tenant has committed acts of waste. As the evidence of P.W.1
will show that the value of the premises has been enhanced, the Rent Controller is justified in negativing the case of the petitioner that the tenant has
committed acts of waste in the property. The Appellate Authority has also accepted the above finding of the Rent Controller. I see no reason to
differ from the findings of the Rent Controller. Therefore, I hold that the tenant is not liable to be evicted u/s 10(2)(iii) of the Act.
It is the case of the petitioner that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for more than five months and that he has parted with
possession in favour of the sub-tenants and that therefore, he is liable to be evicted. Section 10(2)(vi) of the Act states that the tenant is liable to be
evicted if the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for continuous period of four months without reasonable cause. It is, therefore, clear that to
invoke the above provision, it must be proved that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for four months without reasonable cause. If
plausible reason is given by the tenant for non-occupation of the premises for about four months and if the above explanation is acceptable, then
the tenant is not liable to be evicted under the above provision. In this context, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of R.W.1. R.W.1 has
stated that from the month of August 1985 till January 1986, the hotel was closed and that during the said period, he repaired the building and put
up terrace with the consent of the landlord. P.W.2, the father of P.W.1, has also admitted in his evidence that he was collecting rent prior to 1986
from the tenants. The Rent Controller has held that the tenant has admitted that the hotel was closed for more than five months and that he did not
obtain the consent of the landlord to effect repairs and put up construction. It is significant to note that the petition filed by the landlord is bereft of
particulars on this aspect of the case. It is vaguely stated in the petition that last year the first respondent ceased to occupy the petition premises
and parted with possession of the same to the second respondent. In evidence, P.W.1 has stated that the hotel was closed for some days prior to
filing the R.C.O.P. He has also admitted that the hotel which was closed in the year 1985 was opened in the year 1986. The plaintiff issued notice
under Ex.P-1 to the first respondent alleging that the first respondent ceased to occupy the entire premises without any justifiable reason. The
period from which, the hotel was closed is not stated even in the notice Ex.P-1. In the main petition also, the period during which the hotel was
closed is not stated. In Ex.P-2, the reply issued by the tenant, it is stated that all the maintenance work such as white wash, colour and minor
repairs ware done by him in the month of July 1985 with the permission of the landlord spending huge amount and that he reopened the restaurant
on 15.1.86. It is, thus, clear that the tenant has stated the period during which the hotel was closed. In the reply notice, it is also stated that the
repairs were done with the consent of the landlord. But the landlord/petitioner has not controverted the above fact in the petition. Even though, the
landlord was in possession of the notice and reply notice before filing the R.C.O.P, he has not rebutted the allegations found in Ex.P-2. Therefore,
the Appellate Authority has rightly reversed the finding of the Rent Controller. It is admitted by P.W.2 that he was collecting rent from the tenant
prior to 1986. Therefore, if really the improvements were effected without the consent of P.W.2 at that time, P.W.2 would have taken action
against the tenant or issued notice to the tenant. In view of the above facts, the findings of the Rent Controller that the tenant has ceased to occupy
the premises for certain period and that he is liable to be evicted cannot be sustained at all. The above finding is vitiated by perversity. I hold that
the finding of the Appellate Authority on this aspect has to be confirmed.
Learned counsel for the respondent also relies upon the decision of this Court reported in M.R.M.DURAIAPPA NADAR Vs.
P.THIRUPURASUNDARI AMMAL 1989 1 L.W. 46 wherein it is held that mere ceasing to occupy a building for four months is by itself not
enough to entitle a landlord for an order of eviction and that in addition, it should be established that the conduct of the tenant in ceasing to occupy
the building is without reasonable cause. If the principles of law laid down in the above decision are considered alongwith the materials on record,
the case of the landlord that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises without reasonable cause cannot be upheld. I hold that the Appellate
Authority has come to the correct conclusion in reversing the findings of the Rent Controller on this aspect of the case.
It is the case of the revision petitioner that the first respondent parted with possession in favour of the second respondent and that he has sub-
let the entire premises to the second respondent, who in turn sub-let a portion in favour of the third respondent. It is alleged in the petition that the
first respondent last year unauthorisedly sublet the entire premises and parted with possession in favour of the second respondent. The first
respondent has stated that the oil stores, stationery stores and betel nut shop are run by the first respondent himself and that the shop in front
portion was converted in the year 1960 by the previous landlord. The second respondent has stated in the counter that he was employed by the
first respondent from January 1986 as a Supervisor on a monthly salary and that is not the subtenant under the first respondent and similarly, the
third respondent also repudiated the contention of the petitioner that he is the sub-tenant under the second respondent. It is alleged by him in the
counter that he is an employee under the first respondent and that he is looking after the betel nut shop and stationery shop in the petition
mentioned premises. The Rent Controller has held that respondents 2 and 3 were not examined on the side of the first respondent and that R.W.1
has admitted that he is maintaining accounts for Income Tax and sales-tax and that though, he has stated that he would produce the above
documents, he has not produced the same and that if wages are paid for respondents 2 and 3, it would have been entered in the accounts book
which are not filed by the tenant before the Court and that therefore, it has to be held that respondents 2 and 3 are sub-tenants. Before the
Appellate Authority, the tenant has filed additional documents under Exs.R-14 to R-16. Relying upon the above documents, the Appellate
Authority has held that respondents 2 and 3 are employed by the first respondent on a monthly salary and that they are not the sub-tenants of the
first respondent.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority has committed grave error in admitting the additional
evidence especially when the tenant has not made out a case for adducing additional evidence and that even though, the genuineness of the above
documents are challenged in the counter filed by him in the said application, the Appellate Authority has suo motu marked the above documents
without further proof and that therefore, the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the additional documents cannot be legally
sustained. I see there is considerable force in the above contention of the landlord. In the counter filed by the landlord to the application for
reception of additional evidence, the landlord has stated that the above documents were created for the purpose of the case. As the genuineness of
the above documents are disputed by the landlord, the proper course that could have been adopted by the Appellate Authority is to direct the
petitioner/tenant to examine the witness to prove the above documents. Only if the documents are marked through a witness, the other side i.e.,
landlord would have had an opportunity to question the genuineness of the documents. As the above reasonable course was not adopted by the
Appellate Authority, it is not open to the Appellate Authority to suo motu mark the documents and admit in the evidence. Therefore, I hold that the
findings of the Appellate Authority on the basis of the additional documents cannot be sustained. But, there are other materials to show that the
case of the landlord that respondents 2 and 3 are sub-tenants cannot be accepted. De-hors, the additional documents, the evidence of P.W.1 itself
will show that the case of sub-tenancy cannot be true.
It is not clearly stated in the petition as to when the first respondent has parted with possession in favour of the second respondent. Learned
counsel for the revision petitioner contended that even on the date of the petition, the first respondent was not carrying on business in the petition
mentioned premises. If that is so, it shoud have been alleged in the petition as to when the first respondent has parted with possession in favour of
the second respondent. In the petition, it is vaguely stated that last year the first respondent ceased to occupy the premises and parted with
possession of the same to the second respondent and that the second respondent made unauthroised enclosure in the front portion and converted
the same into a bigger room and sublet to the third respondent, who is running a oil mill stores. But P.W.1, the landlord, has stated in evidence that
he has been collecting the rent from the year 1986 and that he came to know that the second respondent was inducted into possession of the
petition mentioned premises in the year 1986. If the second respondent came into possession of the property even in the year 1986, the allegation
in the petition that only last year i.e., one year prior to filing of R.C.O.P (the R.C.O.P was filed in the year 1992) that the first respondent sublet the
entire premises to the second respondent cannot be true. In view of above glaring discrepancies as to the commencement of the alleged sub-
tenancy, the Rent Controller is not justified in holding that the landlord has established that the first respondent has sublet the premises in favour of
the second respondent. The Rent Controller has given other reasons for accepting the case of the landlord on this aspect of the case. The Rent
Controller has stated that the tenant has not produced documents to show the payment of salary to respondents 2 and 3. R.W.1 has stated that he
paid wages to respondents 2 and 3 from the year 1986. The Rent Controller has held that the first respondent has not proved the said fact and that
therefore, the case of the landlord that the first respondent has sublet the premises to respondents 2 and 3 has to be accepted. The Rent Controller
failed to consider the valuable admission of P.W.1 in evidence. It is stated that he came to know that the second respondent was the sub-tenant of
the first respondent even in the year 1986. The very fact that the landlord did not take any action immediately when he came to know of the sub-
tenancy even in the year 1986 will show that it is not desirable to accept the evidence of P.W.1 for holding that the premises were let out to
respondents 2 and 3 by the first respondent. The Appellate Authority has held that even in the year 1962, there was a stationery shop in the
petition mentioned premises. The Appellate Authority also relies upon Ex.C-1 for giving such a finding. Ex.C-1, the certificate of registration issued
by the Sales Tax Authorities relates to the period 1961-62. It is stated in the above certificate that K. Hussain has been registered as a dealer
whose principal place of business is situate at No.11-B, Purusawalkam High Road. The second page of the above document contains the name of
Hussain Stores"". But R.W.1 has stated that K.Hussain is the proprietor of ""Hussain Stores"" and that he is not the person called as ""K. Hussain"".
However, he has stated that sales tax is being paid from time when his father was alive and that his father is the proprietor of the said ""Hussain
Stores"". He has stated that he has not signed in the above document. Further, he has stated that he has been running the said Hussain Stores from
the year 1974 and that he has been paying sales tax. He has denied the suggestion that he is not the proprietor of said Hussain Stores. R.W.1
seems to have given some confused answers regarding the name Hussain. However, the entire evidence of R.W.1 will show that he has been
carrying on business in the above stores called ""Hussain Stores"". The fact that some body has signed as ""Hussain"" in the above document will not
show that it is not related to the stores run in the petition mentioned premises. The letter of the Commercial Tax Officer, annexed with Ex.C-1 will
show that the father''s name of K. Hussain is Abdul Khader Baksha. The landlord conveniently omitted to mention even the father''s name of the
first respondent in the petition. Therefore, the findings of the appellate Authority based on the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex C-1 that the stationery
stores is being run from the year 1962 cannot be said to be vitiated by any infirmity. If really respondents 2 and 3 are only sub-tenants of the first
respondent, the landlord/P.W.1 would have immediately issued notice to the first respondent even in the year 1986 when he came to know that the
second respondent is in possession of the portion of the petition mentioned premises. The inaction on the part of the landlord in not taking action
for about seven years, even after coming to know of the fact that the second respondent is the sub-tenant will negate the contention of the
petitioner-landlord that the first respondent has parted with the entire premises in favour of the second respondent. The alleged case of sub-
tenancy has not been proved by the landlord by acceptable and adequate evidence and as such, the Appellate Authority is justified in reversing the
findings of the Rent Controller on this aspect.
Learned counsel for the tenant also relies upon the decision reported in BOOCHI AMMAL AND OTHERS Vs. G.MARI CHETTIAR AND
ANOTHER 1984 TLNJ 221 wherein it is held that in the absence of evidence regarding parting of physical possession there cannot be any sub-
letting. In this case also, it is not established that the first respondent has parted with possession of the premises or a portion of the premises in
favour of respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, I hold that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Authority on this aspect of
the case. I accept the evidence of R.W.1 and hold that respondents 2 and 3 are his employees. It is, thus, seen that none of the grounds set out in
the R.C.O.P to evict the respondent is established. Therefore, I hold that the order of the Appellate Authority in dismissing the R.C.O.P.2363 has
to be upheld.
The landlord/revision petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.2362 of 92 alleging that he require the petition mentioned premises for his own
occupation. It is alleged by the landlord in the petition that he is running one printing press and book binding business in the name and style ""N.E.
Printers"" and another business of laser type setting in the major portion of ground floor and first floor of premises No.2, Chetty Street, Saidapet
and that he is paying monthly rent of Rs.500/- to his father. It is admitted that the petitioner is carrying on business in No.2, Chetty Street,
Saidapet. It is not in disptue that the above property belongs to P.W.2, the father of P.W.1. The petitioner has alleged that his father demanded
enhanced rent of Rs.3000/- and that the petitioner is married and living separately and that the relationship between him and his father was not
cordial. The first respondent/tenant denies the above allegations. It is contended on behalf of the tenant that the requirement of the petition
mentioned building by the petition is not bonafide.
P.W.1 has also filed documents to show that he has been carrying on business at No.2, Chetty Street, Saidapet. Exs. P-4, P-7 to P-9 are the
said documents. The Rent Controller has held that as the petitioner has no other building to carry on business and that as he is carrying on his
business in a rent building, the tenant is liable to vacate the premises and handover possession to the petitioner. The question whether the
requirement of the petition mentioned building by the petitioner is bonafide or not has not been properly considered by the Rent Controller. On the
other hand, the Appellate Authority has held that the plea of landlord that there were misunderstandings between the petitioner and his father
cannot be true and that the father only insisted his son to vacate the premises by demanding enhanced rent and that the father of the first
respondent is carrying on hotel business from the year 1937 and that therefore, it cannot be said that the requirement of petition mentioned building
for own occupation of the petitioner is bonafide. The findings of the Appellate Authority are assailed by the landlord on several grounds.
Learned counsel for the landlord-revision petitioner contended that the fact that the petitioner is carrying on business in his father''s property
and the fact that there was no misunderstanding between the petitioner and his father cannot be a ground for holding that the requirement of the
petition mentioned building for owners occupation is not bonafide. On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenant contended that as the landlord
is seeking eviction u/s 10(3)(iii) of the Act, he must establish in addition to other ingredients that his requirement of the building is bonafide. Learned
counsel for the landlord and tenant have relied upon number of authorities in support of their plea. The question whether the requirement of the
building for own occupation of the landlord is bonafide or not would depend upon the facts of each case. The principles laid down in the decisions
on this aspect are summaried thus:-
(i)A landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from a non-residential premises in order to succeed in his petition should establish that he bonafide
require the premises in addition to proving the other ingredients Hameedia Hardware Stores, represented by its partner S. Peer Mohammed Vs.
B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, : and Bank of Baroda Vs. Mahendra Dadha and Others,
(ii) The primary requirement is that the landlord should not occupy a residential building of his own (1979 (II) MLJ 367)
(iii)The fact that the landlord has been carrying on business belonging to the joint family of which he is a member does not disentitle him from
getting his own building for the purpose of business (GOPALAKRISHNA CHETTIAR, A. Vs. T.K.A. YAKUB HUSSAIN 1997 L.W.232 &
KEVAL CHAND, C. & ANOTHER Vs. KARUPPANNA MUDALIAR & OTHERS 1997 1 L.W. 335
(iv)The landlord need not prove that there is misunderstanding or strained relationship between the members of the family to seek eviction on the
ground of bonafide requirement Munuswamy Vs. S.S. Nathan, :
(v)The ownership of the property by the son is not the ownership of the father so that it can be put against a case u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
(RAJALASKHMI AMMAL Vs. S.S. PIRAMANAGAYAM (92 L.W. 68)
(vi)It is not open to the tenant to contend that the landlord has acquired a building in the name of his wife and vacant site in the name of his son to
disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction under this section (KRISHNAMOORTHY, K Vs. D.R. SUBRAMANIAN 1997 1 L.W.554
(vii)Doing a business in the rented premises is not a pre-requisite to file petition under this section. To invoke the Section, it is not necessary that
the landlord has to carry on business in the rented premises Jayaram Metal Works Vs. G. Jaganathan and Another,
(viii)Mere desire to use or occupy the premises is not enough (SANKARAN, A AND ANOTHER Vs. BALASUNDARAM S.K AND
ANOTHER 1994 2 L.W.152
It is, thus, clear from the above decisions that the fact that the landlord is carrying on business in a rented building is not a valid ground to negative
the claim of the landlord for owner''s occupation.
The fact that the petitioner does not own any other non-residential building is not sufficient to hold that the requirement of the building by the
petitioner is bonafide. It is seen that the petitioner/landlord has filed another R.C.O.P to evict the tenant under four grounds. Apart from this
R.C.O.P, he has filed another R.C.O.P 2598 of 92 for fixation of fair rent. It is, thus, clear that the landlord is in the process of exhausting all the
remedies available under the Act to evict the tenant. The above aspect of the case has to be taken into consideration in considering the question
whether the requirement of the petition mentioned building for own occupation is bonafide or not.
It is no doubt true that the relationship between the petitioner and his father, P.W.2, will not play any role in deciding the said question. But the
evidence adduced by the petitioner on this aspect would raise considerable doubt on the bonafide requirement of the building by the petitioner. He
has stated that his father demanded enhanced rent and that he insisted him to vacate the premises and that the relationship between them was not
cordial. But his father has come forward to give evidence in favour of the petitioner. P.W.1 has stated that he has been carrying on business in the
ground floor and staying in the first floor and that he is not residing with his father. The petitioner is carrying on business in Saidapet, whereas the
petition mentioned building is situate in Purusawalkam. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is residing separately. It is stated in the petition
that he requires the building for non-residential purpose only. If the evidence of the petitioner that he is residing only at No.2, wherein he is carrying
on business and that heis not residing alongwith his father in the family house is true, then it has to be inferred that the petitioner require the petition
mentioned building for both residential and non-residential purpose. But in the petition, he has stated that he requires the petition mentioned building
only for non-residential purpose.
It is admitted by the petitioner/P.W.1 that he is carrying on business from the year 1986-87. It is not known as to why the landlord has filed
this petition in the year 1992 for own occupation. Absolutely, there is no urgency for the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of
owners occupation. Except the self-serving testimony of P.W.1 and his father, P.W.2, there are no materials to show that the petitioner is under
the threat of eviction. Though each of the above facts would not play any role in deciding the question, the said facts have to be considered
alongwith other materials, which are narrated above. If really the requirement of the building for non-residential purpose is bonafide, the petitioner
could have taken steps earlier to seek eviction on this ground. In the above circumstances, I see no infirmity in the findings of the Appellate
Authority in dismissing the R.C.O.P. I hold that the requirement of the petition mentioned building for owners occupation is not bonafide. I hold
that the Appellate Authority is justified in reversing the findings of the Rent Controller. Therefore, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.
In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
No costs.