BALAGANESAN METALS Vs. M N SHANMUGHAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is by a tenant against whom an order of eviction passed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", by the Rent Controller was restored by the High Court of Madras after setting aside the dismissal of the eviction petition by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The facts are not in controversy and may briefly be set out as under. A one-storeyed building in Wall Tax Road, Madras was originally owned by one Unnamalai Ammal. She was using the first floor for her residence and had leased out the ground floor to the appellant herein to be used as a godown for storing his business ware. It is common ground the appellant's shop is situate in an adjoining building. The lease was for a period of 10 years with an option for renewal for a futher period of 5 years. Unnamalai Ammal however refused to renew the lease and filed a suit against the appellant for eviction on the ground she bona fide required the ground floor also for her residential use. The suit did not meet with success. Unnamalai Ammal bequeathed the property to her son-in-law and grandson who are the respondents herein. As legatees of the premises the respondents filed a petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act praying for eviction of the appellant on the ground they bona fide required additional accommodation for their residential needs. The Rent Controller upheld their claim, after finding the relevant factors of bona fide need and comparative hardship in their favour and ordered eviction. On appeal by the appellant, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and further held that the respondents were not entitled to recover possession of non-residential premises for their residential requirements and dismissed the petition for eviction. On further revision to the High Court by the respondents Ramaprasada Rao, C. J. set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The aggrieved tenant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The judgment under appeal is assailed by the appellant on four grounds, viz. (1) Since the ground floor constitutes a building by itself within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, the respondents can seek eviction of the appellant only under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and not under Section 10(3)(c);