E M KUTHURATHULLAH Vs. R RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant tenant on the grounds allegedly available under Sections 10 (3) (a) (iii) and 14 (1) (b) of the tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The case of the respondent has been that he is a jeweller running his jewellery business in tenanted premises and wants to shift to his own building wherein the suit premises are situated. According to the landlord he does not have any other non-residential building of his own available in the city and for the purpose of shifting his business to the suit premises he will demolish the building and reconstruct the same. The trial court upheld the requirement of the respondent landlord and passed a decree for eviction. It was reversed by the appellate court at the instance of the tenant. The appellate court formed an opinion that a case for demolition and reconstruction was not made out and as the respondent landlord wanted to occupy the premises only after demolition and reconstruction, his requirement could not be said to be bona fide. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the appellate court, the landlord preferred a civil revision to the High Court which has been allowed. The High Court has set aside the judgment of the appellate court and restored that of the trial court. The tenant has preferred this appeal by special leave.

(2.) The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that inasmuch as the case of the respondent is for occupation of the suit premises only after reconstruction and as availability of ground under Section 14 (1) (b) has been negatived by the High Court, a decree for eviction pure and simple under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) could not have been passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the submission though forcefully advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It has been held by this court in Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta v. Indradaman Amratlal Sheth that where the case pleaded by the landlord is that he wants to demolish and reconstruct the tenancy premises before occupying the same for his own requirement, the nature of the requirement pleaded would be one of bona fide requirement and not one of demolition and reconstruction. Undisputedly, in the case on hand, the landlord is running his business in a rented shop; he does not have any other non-residential premises available within the city to satisfy his own requirement. We cannot find fault with the finding of the High court that the requirement of the landlord who is already engaged in a commercial activity but in a rented shop cannot be said to be not acting bona fide when he claims the tenancy premises of his own for satisfying his own requirement for continuing his own business by shifting the same to the suit premises. The fact that a case of bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction has not been held proved would not make any difference.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, we cannot find fault with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.