GOVINDA CHETTIAR Vs. PACHAYAPPA PANDITHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOVINDA Chettiar, the owner of premises No. 79 -A, Bazaar Street, Tindivanam, filed an application for eviction of his tenant Pachayappa Pandithar before the District Munsif of Tindivanam under the provisions of Section 7(3)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. The premises was a non -residential building within the terms of the said Act and the tenant was carrying on the business of a barber shop therein. The tenant had executed a rental deed, dated 8th June, 1953, which was for a period of one year on a rental of Rs. 14 per month. The grounds on which the owner sought to evict the tenant were : (i) the tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of six months and 20 days and that there was wilful default in not paying the rent; (ii) that the tenant committed acts of waste by removing the door and the door -frame; and (iii) that the owner was carrying on business in flour milling and that the premises is required for locating his business;

(2.) THE tenant resisted the application stating that there was no wilful default in the matter of payment of rent though he was admittedly in arrears as stated by the landlord. His case was that the landlord refused the money orders sent by him and therefore there was no wilful default on his part. He deposited the arrears due into Court after the filing of the application for eviction. The tenant further denied that he committed any act of waste on the premises, and that the removal of the door and the door -frame was only for convenient enjoyment of the premises in the course of conducting his business as barber shop. The tenant further stated that the landlord was not carrying on any business of flour mill, but that even if he wanted to do such business he had another site of his own wherein that business can be carried on.

(3.) THE only ground now pressed before me by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the finding of the Courts below that the landlord had obtained a licence from the Cuddalore Municipality for the carrying on a flour mill business though in the name of the landlord's son was sufficient to enable the landlord to recover possession of the premises from the tenant under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.