RAJ KUMAR Vs. ABDULRAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in the two original petitions are brothers. The common first respondent is their landlord. The landlord has a building bearing door No. 9/77. The eastern three rooms are let oat to one of the brothers and three other rooms with the Varandha are let out to the other brother. The two brothers have rubber business as partners in the premises. Another portion of the same building consisting of four rooms and lean to are in the possession of the landlord, who is running a partnership business therein, the business being in fertilizers, pesticides, oil cakes, coir mats etc. The firm has agency from several reputed business concerns. The landlord filed eviction petition against the two tenants claiming that he requires the tenanted premises for his own occupation for the purpose of business (S.11(3) of Act 2 of 1965) or alternatively he requires additional accommodation for his personal use (S.11(8) of the Act.). The claim was opposed by the tenants on various grounds. Learned Rent Controller upheld the claim for eviction under S.11(8) of the Act while rejecting the claim under S.11(3) of the Act. The tenants filed appeals before the appellate authority, who set aside the eviction order passed under S.11(8) of the Act. The appellate orders were reversed and the orders of the Rent Controller restored by the District Judge in revision petitions filed by the landlord. The orders of the revisional court are now challenged under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Ext.C1 is the commissioner's report. He describes the building in parts of which the two tenants and the partnership firm of the landlord are conducting business. Three rooms are let out to each of the tenants and in those rooms they are conducting business in rubber as partners. The remaining four rooms and lean to are used by the landlord for conducting his partnership business in fertilizers, pesticides, oil cakes etc. The question is whether the order of the learned District Judge upholding the decision of the Rent Controller that claim for eviction under S.11(8) has been made out and reversing the contrary decision of the appellate authority is liable to be interfered with under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Under S.11(8) of the Act a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use. There is no dispute that the landlord and the two tenants are occupying parts of the same building. In a part of the building landlord is conducting partnership business in the commodities referred to above. His definite case is that part of the building, where he runs the business is inadequate for the purpose of business and he requires additional accommodation, for the purpose of that business, which according to him falls in the category of the expression 'personal use'. The learned Rent Controller upheld his claim and the same was rebutted by the learned appellate authority even on facts. The revisional authority concluded that the finding of the appellate authority is vitiated by ignoring the relevant evidence and on the basis of serious mis-apprehension of facts and evidence.