S.GANESA RAMASUBRAMANIAN Vs. KASIVISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the petitioner. The eviction proceedings were launched by the landlord in R.C.O.P.No.79 of 1997 seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3) a(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of bonafide requirement for owner's occupation. The tenancy and the purpose of tenancy are admitted. The respondent/tenant is running a Ice factory in the tenanted premises. The landlord sued for eviction stating that he requires the premises for the purpose of starting a new business in Oil Mill, which he proposes to commence. The landlord is already a business man carrying on business in Rice and Flower Mill in the very same compound. Contending that the landlord is not in possession of any other non-residential premises to enable him to carry on new business, the eviction proceeding was initiated by him.

(2.) The said petition was resisted by the tenant claiming that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide. The landlord is in possession of several other premises. Therefore, he is not entitled to seek eviction under Section 10(3) a(iii) of the Act. It was also contended that the landlord is in habit of evicting the tenants setting up grounds for eviction like the present one and letting out the premises to other tenants at a higher rent. Pending RCOP, the tenant also filed a suit in O.S.No.611 of 1996 seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendant/landlord from interfering with his peaceful possession, except under due process of law. The said suit came to be decreed and the decree was also confirmed in A.S.No.158 of 2002. Against the said decree, the landlord has filed the second appeal in S.A.(MD)No.116 of 2004.

(3.) The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission in the Second Appeal: