MADHURANI GUPTA Vs. SHAIRU BUX DAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in C.R.P. Nos. 1647 and 1648 of 1990 is the first respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 312 of 1984 on the file of the 9th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. THE petitioner in C.R.P. Nos. 1650 and 1651 and 1990 is the second respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 312/84. THE respondent in all the civil revision petitions is the petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 312 of 1984. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the Rent Control Original Petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is the landlord and he filed R.C.O.P. No. 312 of 1984 under S. 10(3) (a) (iii) and S. 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 and landlord of the premises bearing door No. 20, Murugappan Street, Madras-79 and the first respondent is a tenant occupying a shop for business purposes in the ground floor of premises No. 20, Murugappan Street on a monthly rent of Rs. 175/- and the second respondent is also a tenant under the petitioner occupying a shop for the business purposes in premises No. 20 referred above in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. THE petitioner is carrying on the business u nder the name and style of ?Wire House? as proprietor thereof in the car shed in premises No. 20, Murugappan Street. THE petitioner's son and wife are carrying on the business under the name and style of ?Damani Brothers? also in the petition premises in an adjoining small place in the car shed. THE petitioner's another son and daughter-in-law are carrying on business at No. 13, Errabalu Street Madras-1. THE petitioner was originally carrying on business at No. 100, Broadway, Madras-1 which had a plinth area of 1600 sit.'As the lesson, of the said premises No. 100, Broadway wanted the petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession, the petitioner is forced to vacate the said premises and carry on his business in the car shed portion in the petition premises., THE car shed portion wherein the petitioner is now carrying on business is just about 300 sq.ft. whereas in the original place of business at No. 100, Broadway he was carrying on business in about 1600 sit in area. THE business of the petitioner's son and wife is also carried on in the same; place. THE car shed portion measuring 300 sift, is not sufficient for both the business of the petitioner as well as the business of his wife and son, and the petitioner bona fide requires the petition mentioned premises in the occupation of the respondents for the occupation of the petitioner and his wife and son by way of additional accommodation. THE petitioner's another son and daughter-in-law are doing business under the name and style of ?Southern Capacitors?in No. 13, Errabalu Street which is a rented building and as the petitioner, his son and daughter-in-law did not own any building of their own, the portion in the respondents? occupation in the petition premises is req uired for the purpose of business of his son and daughter-in-law which is being carried on in the building not of their own. Disclaimer: THE text is computer generated. THE user must verify the authenticity of the extracted portion with the certified copy of the judgment. This extract is taken from Madhurani Gupta v. Shairu Bux Damani, (1991) 2 LW 692 , at page 694 ?:

(3.) AS against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the first respondent filed R.CA. No. 143 of 1988 before the Appellate Authority (8th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) and the second respondent filed R.C.A. No. 145 of 1988. AS against the finding of the Rent Controller that the petitioner is not entitled to an order of eviction under 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act, he filed R.C.A. No. 255 of 1988. The Appellate Authority heard all the Rent Control Appeals together and by a common judgment dismissed R.C.A. Nos. 143 and 145 of 1988 and allowed R.C.A. No. 255 of 1988. The Appellate Authority, while allowing R.C.A. No. 255 of 1988, found that the petitioner is also entitled to an order of eviction under S. 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act. AS against the judgment of the Appellate Authority in the above Rent Control Appeals, the respondents have filed the above civil revision petitions.