S MOHAMMED JAMAL Vs. SUREKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition for eviction was originally filed under Section 10 (3) (c) of The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 and subsequently amended as Under Section 10 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act.

(2.) THE respondent/landlady contended that she is the owner of the premises at No.72. Sri THEyagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 and the Respondent is a tenant under the Petitioner carrying on Tailoring business in the name and style of M/s. Radiant Tailors in Shop No.4 at No.72, Sri THEyagaraya Road. T.Nagar, Chennai on a monthly rent of Rs.900 for non-residential purpose and the rental amount is paid according to English calander month. According to the landlady, she requires the portion under the occupation of the respondent for providing a Car shed to park a Maruti Car and a Scooter belonging to her husband and also another scooter belonging to her son. According to the landlady, the said vehicles are now parked at the platform in front of the premises and the Petitioners husband and son were penalised by the Traffic police authorities for unlawful parking of the vehicles. THE portion occupied by the respondent was situated in the petition premises facing the road side and hence it was suitable for the petitioner to convert the same as a Car shed for parking the vehicles belonging to her husband and son. THErefore, she requires the premises bona fide by way of additional accommodation to provide a Car shed for parking the vehicles. A legal notice was sent to the respondent on 20.8.1990 informing about the bona fide requirement to use the portion under his occupation as a Car shed for their own family and called upon the respondent to quit and deliver vacant possession of the shop. THE respondent chose to send an untenable reply through his counsel on 27.8.1990 refusing to vacate the premises. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) THE expression for the purpose of keeping the vehicles by "adapted" for such use as used in Section 10 (3) (a) (ii) should be interpreted in strict sense namely either the premises was being used as a shed on the date of the petition and the landlady requires the same for the purpose of keeping his vehicle or that it has been adapted for such use. In other words, the premises was being used or adapted for such use on the date of the petition.