S NAGARAJAN Vs. T SIVAPRAKASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1998 on the file of Rent Controller at Erode is the revision petitioner. Parties herein will be referred as 'landlord' and 'tenant'.

(2.) LANDLORD filed eviction petition against tenant on the ground that scheduled building is required for bona fide own occupation of his son T.S.Nataraj, who is running a partnership business with one Jayaraman under the name and style 'Integrity Enterprises' at door No.209, Vaibhav Complex, 1569,Trichy Road,Coimbatore and they are dealers in rigid P.V.C. pipes, electrical and domestic hardwares, printing chemicals, paper cartons and building materials. He is having godowns in Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore and also a branch at Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore. It is stated that the firm 'Integrity Enterprises' has been appointed as one of the authorised dealers to market and promote the products like Trubore Brand Rigid P.V.C. pipes, Casings and Screens in Coimbatore, Dharmapuri, Erode, Nilgiris and Salem Districts by M/s.Polytrusions Private Limited, Chennai. It is also alleged that landlord's son Nataraj is a shareholder in Coimbatore Capital Market Services Private Limited, which entitles M/s.Ganesh Investments to trade in National Stock Exchange. Nataraj is a partner in M/s.Ganesh Investments which carries business in shares, debentures, stocks, bonds etc. and acting as brokers in buying and selling the same. It is said that petitioner's son bona fidely require schedule premises to open a branch to carry on the dealership business of M/s.Polytrusions Private Limited and also the Stock Exchange business which he is already carrying on. It is said that they are not having any other non-residential building of their own within the municipal limits of Erode for carrying the said businesses.

(3.) RENT Controller further held that tenant is also having other buildings of his own and rented out the same for getting better income. The contention of tenant that scheduled premises is not suitable for doing business in P.V.C. pipes, printing chemicals, building materials were also found against tenant. It was held that if the claim is found to be bona fide suitability of premises is a matter for landlord alone to consider and not for tenant. Regarding the contention that underground floor is suitable for landlord's business, RENT Controller held that even tenant has refused to take up that portion since the same is without air or light and in view of the nature of construction, it is not possible to do business in P.V.C. pipes in the underground floor. Eviction was ordered.