MUNIAMMAL Vs. R SUNDARA MAHALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14-4-1988 in R. C. A. No. 57 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, madurai, the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), reversing the order dated 4-9-1986 in R. C. O. P. No. 5 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (District munsif), Thirumangalam on an application under S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act filed by the respondent herein.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed R. C. O. P. No. 5 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thirumangalam, under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii)of the Act for eviction of the petitioners herein. THE case of the landlord is that the premises bearing Door No. 19, Bazaar Street, Peraiyur Village, thirumangalam Taluk is a non-residential one, that the respondent herein purchased the property from his predecessor for the purpose of starting a jewellery shop and money-lending business at that building, that the respondent herein did not own or possess any other buildings of his own, that he made all arrangements to start the business and as such he instituted the proceedings under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act for eviction of the revision petitioners herein.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord of the demised premises was not bona tide, that from the evidence on record, the landlord was not doing any business at the time of the filing of the petition for eviction and that he wanted to do business only after obtaining vacant possession of the premises. THE learned Rent Controller also observed that there was no material to show that the landlord had taken any step for the purpose of carrying on jewellery shop. He also believed the evidence of P. Ws. which was to the effect that the landlord did not apply for licence for the purpose of running a jewellery shop. It is not in dispute that the landlord had not applied for any licence for the purpose of running a jewellery shop. It is also not in dispute that the landlord had not been carrying on business on the date when the petition was filed. Mr. A. Ramanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, referred to the decision in Raju Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1970) 1 Mad LJ 249 : 1970 AIR (Mad) 306), where the Bench, while considering the meaning of the phraseology "carrying on a business", observed thus (at p. 307 of AIR) : "on a careful consideration of the language employed by the section and particularly the words we have extracted and also the view of the several single Judges, we are of the view that while the literal construction placed by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. , does not with due respect, commend itself to us, the other view appears to be reasonable. We think so because "carrying on a business" may consist of a series of steps, and, even if one step is proved, we do not see why the requirement is not satisfied. But, if there is no step at all whatever and the matter is only in the stage of intention, it is difficult to bring such a case within the phraseology of the statute. It follows, therefore, that the State Government was right in proceeding upon the basis that the landlord was yet to commence the business and, therefore, he could not have made use of section 10 (3) (c) (iii ). THE eviction order was, therefore, competent and does not suffer from any infirmity. " * It is clear from this decision that even if one step is proved, the requirement of S. 10 (3) (c) (iii) would be satisfied. In the instant case, there is no step at all whatever and the matter is only in the stage of intention, and hence it is difficult to bring such a case under S. 10 (3) (c) (iii ).