S LOGANATHAN Vs. V S RANGASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant in the R.C.O.P. is the revision petitioner herein. THE respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. for eviction of the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the landlord/ petitioner is as follows: THE first respondent in the O.P. has taken on lease the petition mentioned property on 1.4.1989 for running business on a monthly rent of Rs.1,200. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs.2,000 and now the monthly rent is Rs.2,000 payable on the first of every English Calendar month. THE tenant and the landlord entered into a lease deed on 1.4.1989, 6.3.1990 and 27.8.1992. THE second respondent in the O.P. is the sub-tenant under the first respondent. Originally the first respondent was doing lottery agency business in the petition mentioned property under the name and style of "Kalaimani Lottery Agency" and subsequently, in the year 1990, he changed the name and style of business and doing business under the name and style of "Suriya Lottery Agency". After 27.8.1992, the first respondent closed his lottery business and is doing bakery business in the petition mentioned property under the name and style of "Indu Biscuit Bakery". After the expiry of the said lease period, the first respondent continued under the same terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 27.8.1992 for running the same business. THE first respondent failed to pay rent for the month of April, May and June, 1998. THE arrears of rent is Rs.6,000. In spite of repeating demands the fist respondent has not paid the rent. THE default committed by the first respondent is wilful and supine indifferences. THE first respondent without the oral consent of the landlords has sub-let a portion of the building to the second respondent and he is doing Audio Cassette business under the name and style of "Roja Audio Centre". THE second respondent is also running a tea shop in the petition mentioned property without the written consent of the petitioner. THE first respondent having taken the building for doing bakery business is now using the building for different purpose. THE first respondent is running a Cool Drink stall in the petition mentioned property without the oral and written consent of the landlord. THE petitioner is also carrying on gingelly oil business. He is manufacturing gingelly oil and the trade mark of this oil is "Gandhimathi Mark Gingelly Oil". He is manufacturing and doing wholesale business at park Road, Erode. THE building at Park Road, Erode is lacking in accommodation to accommodate the petitioner for retail oil business. In view of the lack of accommodation, the petitioner is not able to expand the retail oil business. THErefore, the petitioner requires the petition mentioned property for personal use and occupation. THE petitioner requires the building for bona fide requirement for his personal occupation to carry on oil business in retail. THE petitioner requested the first respondent to surrender possession of the building for his own occupation. As the respondent refused to vacate the building, this petition is filed for eviction.

(3.) THE following contentions are raised by the tenant/ revision petitioner in this revision: THE Courts below committed error in holding that the tenant has committed wilful default. THE Courts below failed to take note of the fact that the tenant has sent the rent by moneyorder and that it was refused by the landlord. THE fact that the tenant sent the rent by money order and the fact that the landlord received the entire amount in the first hearing of the Court will show that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant. THE articles found by the Commissioner in the petition mentioned property were included in the original business of bakery and the landlord was fully aware of all these things for quite number of years before filling the eviction petition and therefore, the Courts below committed error in holding that the petitioner is running business different from one that he entered into under the tenancy agreement. THEre is no evidence to show that the first respondent/ tenant has sub-let a portion of the building to the second respondent. THE tea stall was kept outside the petition mentioned property. No bakery shop was let out or put in possession of the second respondent. THE Courts below failed to note that all the landlord own other buildings in the locality and that he has also let out another building, which is situate behind the petition mentioned building and as such, the Courts below ought to have held that the requirements of the petition mentioned building for personal use and occupation by the petitioner/ landlord is not bona fide.