SRINIVASIAH Vs. BALAJI KRISHNA HARDWARE STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of our judgment in Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasiah, (1998) 2 SCC 708 : (1998 AIR SCW 762) (Civil Appeal No. 638 of 1998) dated 6-2-1998. By that judgment, the Civil Appeal preferred by the tenant was allowed and the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 30-8-97 was set aside and the eviction petition filed by the review petitioner (Landlord) was dismissed. We may state that eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for the business of his sons and eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller by his judgment dated 25-1-1990 in R.C.O.P. No. 2564 of 1986. The said judgment was confirmed by the appellate authority in RCA No. 229 of 1990 on 18-3-1992 and by the High Court in CRP No. 1857 of 1992 on 30-8-1997. These Judgments held that the landlord bona fide needed the shop occupied by the tenant for the purpose of his son's business. In the Civil Appeal, these judgments were set aside by this Court on the short ground that behind the shop occupied by the tenant who was sought to be evicted, there was a shop-room which had fallen vacant and the landlord had not established that it was not suitable for his son's business. This Court observed that the said shop could be reached from the front-side through the passage lying between the tenant's shop on the right side and the shop on the left side occupied by Srinivas Glass Agencies.

(2.) The point raised in the Review application was that this Court wrongly assumed that the vacant shop on the ground floor behind the shop occupied by the tenant was a 'godown' and was not a shop and that was also the admission of the tenant and also the finding of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority. On 1-4-1998, we ordered notice in the review application. The tenant appeared and filed his counter in this application.

(3.) We may state here that when the Civil Appeal was heard, this Court did not have the benefit of the judgments of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority. The case was argued only on the basis of the Judgment of the High Court. The said Judgments have now been filed by the landlord in this review application. The landlord has also filed the oral evidence adduced before the Rent Controller to show that the tenant admitted in his evidence that the vacant portion behind the tenant's shop was a 'godown'.