S.N.K. Ramaswami Pillai vs Karmega Thevar

S. Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.—This revision petition raises an interesting question under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)

Act, 1960. The Respondent is the owner of door No. 61, Main Road, Koilpatti. That had been leased out for non-residential purposes to the

Petitioner. The former, who had no previous business of his own with a view to start a business, applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the

Petitioner on the ground that the building was required for purposes of business which he intended to carry. The application was dismissed both by

the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the ground that a mere intention to carry on business would not amount to carrying on a

business, which would alone under the terms of Section 10(3)(a)(iii), entitle the owner of a building to get the premises from the tenant for his

personal use. This view has not been accepted on revision by the learned District Judge of Tirunelveli. He held that, if the request of the

Respondent was bona fide in the sense that his object was really to start the business and not to put up the rent, it could be said that he was

carrying on a business within the meaning of the section. The learned District Judge was also of the opinion that a person who was not actually

carrying on a business, but had merely made preparations for the same but was in a position to start it immediately on getting possession of the

property from his tenant, could be said to be carrying on his business. In this view, the Court of revision set aside the order of the Appellate

Authority and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for disposal in the light of those observations.

In this revision, Mr. D. Ramaswami Ayyangar, appearing for the tenant, has challenged the correctness of the view taken by the learned District

Judge. Learned Counsel has referred me to Section 10, which enumerates the circumstances under which a landlord can evict his tenant. Sub-

section 3(a)(iii) which is relevant for our present purpose, in specifying one of the cases where the landlord could recover possession, states:

In case it is any ether non-residential building, if the landlord or his son is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or his son is carrying

on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own.

It is contended that the section contemplates a person carrying on business, comprising an integrated activity of purchase and sale of

commodities, or of sale of commodities and that where there is nothing move than a mere intention to start a business, he could not be said to be

carrying on the business. I am however, unable to accept that argument, which, in my opinion, has been rather stated broadly. It is not necessary

for the purpose of carrying on a business within the meaning of that sub-section that the entire activity of a business should exist. If that be so, then,

no landlord who has not already an existing business could ever recover possession of the property for his own business which he wants to start. A

more sensible interpretation of that section will be that, if at least a part of the business has commenced, the landlord should be deemed to have

commenced the business, although the further conduct of it would depend upon his being able to secure his building for it In the present case, the

Respondent showed his bona fides by offering to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000 into Court. It is not now disputed before me that the Respondent is

rich enough to afford that sum. If, therefore, he has got the means to do it and if the Court finds that he has got the intention as well, it is only a

question of fact to consider whether he has started carrying on the business. Investment of money is normally the first step for conducting a

business. That it has been done is almost conceded, in this case. I do not see why, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the landlord has

commenced his business, though the activity relating to it has to await the securing of accommodation. In my opinion, Section 10(3)(a) (iii) would

cover the case where the authorities come to the conclusion that the demand for occupation is a bona fide one and that the Respondent has already

commenced some activity in connection with the starting of the business. The view taken by the learned District Judge is, therefore, correct.

The revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.