SYED YUSUF Vs. O P KANNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner herein. THE landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of requiring the petition premises by way of additional accommodation under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). THE petition premises is situate at No.8. C.N.Krishnasamy Road, Chepauk, Madras-5. It is a non-residential building. THE respondent herein is the tenant under the petitioner herein in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.125. THE Rent Controller ordered eviction. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority on appeal reversed the order of the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the landlord submitted as under: THE landlord is having an engineering workshop in the rear portion of the petition premises. THE tenant is in occupation of the front portion of the said premises, in which he is running a tea-stall. THE landlord's business is expanding day by day. He purchased new machineries. Further the passage leading to his portion from the road is very narrow. Hence, it is difficult for him to bring in the raw materials and the machineries. So also, it is difficult for him to take out the finished" products through the narrow passage. In fact, the landlord purchased the petition premises for the purpose of running his workshop. Since the portion under his occupation is insufficient for running his workshop he bona fide requires the portion under the occupation of the tenant by way of additional accommodation. THE relative advantage of the landlord would outweigh the tenant's hardship.

(3.) BY way of reply, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted as under: The portion occupied by the betel-nut shop is very small. It admea-sures only 4 feet x 9 feet and therefore it will not be sufficient for accommodating his new machineries. The space in between the portions occupied by the landlord and the tenant is a narrow stretch of land used for, climbing the staircase. Therefore, that cannot be utilised. The adjacent building purchased by him is a residential building therefore it cannot be used for non-residential purpose. Simply because, one of the grounds stated in the petition for eviction was withdrawn that would not go to show that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide.. The landlord never asked the tenant to pay higher rent as alleged.