K GOVINDAN NAIR Vs. HANSRAJ ROTHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.1312 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller (8th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. THE respondent in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the above R.C.O.P. for eviction under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. THE case of the petitioner is as follows:THE petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing door No.30, Pethu Naicken Street, Madras and the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of a portion in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.350. THE petitioner is living in the upstairs of the petition premises with his family consisting of his wife, three sons and two daughters. THE two sons of the petitioner after completing their studies, are now unemployed. THE petitioner was originally carrying on the coffee business in the downstairs portion in the petition premises. But, due to his illness the petitioner was prevented from carrying on the said business and he was forced to stop his business activities. THE petitioner, as he has improved his health, intends to restart his business in coffee with the help of his sons. Further the petitioner's family consists of grown-up people and the petitioner finds it quite inadequate and inconvenient to reside in the portion now available to them. THE petitioner wants to reside in a portion occupied by the respondent and to carry on the business in the remaining portion in the occupation of the respondent and thus using it both for residential and non-residential purposes. THE petitioner bona fide requires the demised portion for his additional accommodation.

(3.) POINT No.2:The admitted case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was originally carrying on the coffee business in the downstairs portion in the petition mentioned premises. But, due to his illness the petitioner was forced to stop his business. The petitioner has admitted in his evidence that he stopped his business activities from 1982 and from 1982 he is not doing any business. Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act provides that a landlord occupying only a part of a building may apply for an order directing the tenant to put any portion of the remaining part of the building in the possession of the landlord if he requires additional accommodation for the purpose of business, which the landlord is carrying on. The landlord can ask for additional accommodation for the purpose of his business only if he is carrying on the business on the date on which he filed the petition for eviction. Admittedly in this case, the petitioner was not carrying on any business either on the date of the petition or on the date of his giving evidence. The question of the petitioner requiring the demised portion for additional accommodation for the purpose of his business does not arise when the petitioner is not carrying on any business.