STERLING CONSTRUCTION Vs. PREMIER TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords, who succeeded before the Rent Controller but failed before the Appellate Authority are the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition. The petitioners herein filed RCOP No.2418/84 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madras, under S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. The case of the petitioners in RCOP No. 2418/84 is as follows :- The petitioners are the registered firm of partnership. The respondents are the tenants of the petitioners in respect of the nonresidential flat No.1F comprised in Municipal door No.131, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras-34, on a monthly rent of Rupees 450/- plus Rs. 60/- for hire charges for two fans in all amounting to Rs. 150/- per mensem. The said building was purchased by the petitioners by a registered Sale Deed dated 30-3-1984 from one Chandran. The respondents who are the tenants of the vendor of the petitioners attorned their tenancy to the petitioners on their purchase of the property. The said non-residential flat in the occupation of the respondent was purchased by the petitioners for the purpose of carrying on their business as contractors and builders. The said business is carried on at the time of filing of RCOP with the address furnished as No.4, Rajaji Second Street, Nungambakkam, Madras-34, which happens to be the residential building in the occupation of the Managing Partner of the petitioner-firm, Mr. C. Kothandaraman. The petitioners have no other non-residential building of their own in the City of Madras for the purpose of carrying on their business as contractors and builders and their requirement of the demised premises for their own business is bona fide. The respondents herein resisted the application for eviction contending as follows:- The respondents are the tenants of the desired premises under the agreement of tenancy with the landlord U.B. Chandran and the period of tenancy is up to 31-8-1985. The respondents not being statutory tenants cannot be evicted invoking the provisions of the Rent Control Act before the expiry of the period of tenancy viz., 31-8-1985. The petitioners being the purchasers of the demised premises from the said U.B. Chandran are bound by all the terms and conditions of the agreement of tenancy between the respondents and the vendor of the petitioners. The petitioners are having their office in the premises of their own premises in which the respondents are carrying on business is not the property of the petitioners. In any event, the petition for eviction filed before the expiry of the tenancy agreement with the previous owner is premature and the petition for eviction is not maintainable.

(2.) The Rent Controller after considering the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the petitioner's requirement of the demised premises for their own business is bona fide and consequently allowed RCOP No.2418/ 84 and passed an order of eviction against the respondents. As against the said order of the Rent Controller, the respondents herein filed an appeal, RCA No.840/86 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Court of Small Causes, Madras). The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioners' requirement of the building for their own business was not bona fide. The application for eviction filed before the expiry if the period of tenancy i.e., 31-8-1985, is not maintainable and consequently allowed RCA setting aside the order of the Rent Controller in RCOP No.2418/84.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority in RCA No.840 of 1986 the landlord has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. Mr.R. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioners' requirement of the demised premises for their own business is not bona fide is not based on evidence and it is perverse. The said learned counsel further contended that the Appellate Authority failed to draw proper inferences from the evidence available on record. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The evidence on record discloses that the petitioners were carrying on business in a building not owned by them but in a building which belonged to the managing partner of the petitioner-firm. The evidence in this case further discloses that they were having office for carrying on their business as contractors and builders by giving the address for service at No.4, Rajaji Second Street, Madras-34 for the office purpose of the petitioner-firm. In the cross-examination, R.W.1 further admitted that the petitioners' firm were doing construction business and on this admission, it has to be held that the petitioners are carrying on business as builders and contractors. On the face of the above admission, the Appellate Authority erred in holding that the petitioners have not proved that they are carrying on any business, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners have not proved that they are carrying on business in a portion of the residential building of the managing partner of the petitioner-firm. The said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the specific admission of R.W.1 in his evidence that the petitioners' office is in a portion of the residential building of the managing partner viz., No.4, Rajaji II/Street and that he had gone to that office. The conclusion of the Appellate Authority that the building No. 4, Rajaji II Street belonged to the petitioners and that it was non-residential building is not based on any evidence. On the other hand, Ex.P-8, the demand notice from the Corporation of Madras goes to prove that the building No.4 Rajaji II Street belongs to the managing partner, C. Kothandaraman. Further, R.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that he is not in a position to deny that No.4, Rajaji II Street, Madras-34, belongs to P.W.1, the managing partner of the petitioner-firm. The further finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioners own other buildings is not based on any evidence. The Appellate Authority found that there was a contract of lease between the previous owner of the demised premises and the respondents herein preventing the petitioners from approaching the Court for eviction prior to 31-8-1985. No document was filed by the respondents in support of the plea that there was a contract of lease between the petitioners' vendor on the one hand and the respondents on the other for the period ending 31-8-1985. In his cross-examination, R.W.1 has admitted that there was a contract of tenancy between the vendor of the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents herein on the other, that the said contract of tenancy is an unregistered one and the period of tenancy is for four years. The duration of lease mentioned in the tenancy agreement was not enforceable as the document was an unregistered lease agreement and conscious of the said position, the respondent have not filed the said unregistered lease agreement as an exhibit in this case. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the petition for eviction was not bona fide and intended to get higher rent. The said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is bereft of any merit. Merely because a petition for fixation of fair rent is filed only to enable the petitioners to get reasonable rent, it cannot be said that it has any bearing on the question of bona fides in filing the petition for eviction. The Rent Controller has rightly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and the admission of R.W.1 and came to the conclusion that the petitioners' requirement of the demised premises for their own business is bona fide. On the other hand the finding of the Appellate Authority are not based on any evidence and the Appellate Authority failed to draw proper inference from the evidence available on record. Therefore, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed the order of the Appellate Authority is set and the order of the Rent Controller in RCOP No.241 8 of 1984 is restored but in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Revision allowed.