NATARAJAN Vs. V M SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The petition premises is situate at No. 49, Periakadai Street, Dindigul town. The petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent herein. The petition for eviction was filed under S. 10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ?the act?). In the beginning the respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 106 of 1977 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for owner's occupation. The said petition was dismissed. The respondent herein stared a business of his own in manufacturing and sale of soap. He also obtained a licence for conducting the said business in the year 1981. At present, the respondent is carrying on his business at West Govindapuram under the name and style of ?S. Kousalya Soap Works?. The respondent is conducting his business in a rented premises and he is paying a rent of Rs. 80 per month. The petition premises is situated in a commercial area. Therefore, the respondent re quires the petition premises for the purpose of conducting his soap business. Hence the petition for eviction was filed.

(2.) THE petitioner herein who is the tenant contended that the petition for eviction was filed with a view to evict him on false ground. THE requirement of the respondent herein of the petition premises is not bona fide . THE respondent herein already filed a petition for eviction on the same ground in H.R C.O.P. No. 106 of 1977, which was dismissed. THE respondent herein is not doing the soap business. THE petition premises would not be suitable for soap manufacturing business. THE tenant is doing tobacco business in the petition premises and a sum of Rs. 25,000 is due to him from various other parties. According to the tenant, if he is evicted that will cause great hardship to him. THErefore, it was submitted that there is no bona fide in requiring the petition premises by the landlord.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submitted as under: THE landlord herein has not made out a case for eviction under S. 10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Act. THE eviction petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in S. 19 of the act. This ground was not considered by the authorities below. THE earlier petition filed for eviction on the same ground was dismissed. Hence this petition should also be liable to be dismissed. THEre is no bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises for his own business. THE petition premises is neither suitable nor could be used for the purpose of manufacturing soap in view of the location, the size and want of water facilities. THE petition premises is not situate in an industrial area. THE premises in which the landlord is now carrying on his business is best suited and located in an industrial area. In support of the contentions put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, reliance was placed on various decisions.