JAYRAJ Vs. V T THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the acquisition of a property by the wife of the landlord would be fatal to the plea raised by the tenant under the first proviso to S.11(3) and also to the plea of bona fides is the question that has come up for consideration in this case. Landlord is aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting his plea of bona fide need under S.11(3) on the ground that a building owned by his wife was rented out after the filing of the Rent Control Petition.

(2.) The petition schedule room is part of a two storied building situated approximately in three cents of land in Andamukkam Village. The tenanted premises, a room in the ground floor, was purchased by the landlord vide sale deed No.2373/96 dated 27.6.1996. The shop room originally belonged to one Bhaskaran who rented out the same to the tenant wherein he is conducting business in the name and style Raju Agencies. Upstair portion of the building is owned by the father of the petitioner landlord bearing No.574, wherein petitioner along with his father inlaw and wife are conducting a business by name Sivasakthi Paints. Landlord's wife purchased a room on 27.12.1996 near to the tenanted premises. Landlord is conducting a manufacturing unit of tinker paste by name and style "Amma Enterprises" at Puthur about 25 kms. away from the petition schedule premises. Petitioner has no suitable building for the sale of his tinker paste. The petition schedule building belongs to the landlord is situated in a commercially important area. Consequently he bona fide required the said premises for storing and selling tinker paste. Petitioner after one year from the date of purchase of the tenanted premises requested the tenant to vacate the premises. Tenant did not vacate the premises. Landlord then filed the present Rent Control Petition on 7.11.1997.

(3.) Tenant resisted the petition contending that there is no bona fides in the plea of the landlord. Tenant contended that since he did not agree for enhancement of rent, landlord is trying to evict him so as to let out the premises for higher rent. Further it is also stated that the landlord is also conducting business in the upstair portion of the tenanted premises which is sufficient for his requirement. Further it is also stated after filing of the Rent Control Petition the adjacent room bearing door No.573 was rented out to one Ahammedkoya on 27.11.1997. Though the said room stood in the name of the landlord's wife actually it was purchased by the landlord in the name of his wife with the funds advanced by the landlord. He therefore contended that there is no bona fides in the plea of the landlord. Benefit of the first proviso to S.11(3) was also urged by the tenant.