KARUR GHEE STORES Vs. N PALANIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A1. The tenant is aggrieved by the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Authorities under the Tamil Nadu buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1960 (the Act in short ). There is a big building on Station Road , chrompet, Madras-44 and the ground floor is divided into 6 shops and the door numbers are 62 to 67. The present civil revision petition is with reference to number on which to an area of about 160 sq. f t. The respondent is the landlord. The respondent is carrying on business at No. 67, which is adjacent to the petition premises. His business is textile business carried on under the name style of'palaniappa textiles'. The area is very small and in view of expansion of business, the respondent filed the petition for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation since he needed the additional space which is occupied by the petitioner and which lies adjacent to the shop occupied by the respondent to sto re his goods and to carry on his textile business. Since he bona fide needed the extra space, he filed the application for eviction under Section 10 (3 ) (C) of the Act. The petitioner denied the requirements of the respondent or the so-called expansion of business. According to him the petition is not bona fide and that already one shop in the same road in which one Ambalavanan was carrying on business has been vacated and the petitioner had gained larger area. The petition is only a device to collect extra rent. The petitioner having been in business at this premises for more than 14 years will suffer great hardship and the advantage or benefit that would be derived by the respondent-landlord will relatively be less than the hardship though the petitioner-tenant would suffer. Therefore eviction petition would be dismissed. Both the Courts however, held that the landlord required the premises as additional accommodation and that his bona fide and also that the relative hardship was only in favour of the landlord and therefore, ordered conviction. The unhappy tenant has filed the civil revision petition.

(2.) MR. K. Alagirisamy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was several factors which would show the need of the respondent has obtained vacant possession of Door. No. 65, and the tenants in all the other shops in the said room had vacated and therefore, the requirement of the landlord did not exist as on date. The subsequent developments must be taken note of by the Courts as per the pronouncements of the Supreme Court. The learned counsel also submitted that Section 10 ( 3 ) (C) will n ot lie, since each of the premises is separate. Therefore, the landlord should have filed an application for owner's occupation but not for additional accommodation. Further the learned Senior counsel submitted that since the respondent had not pleaded in the petition regarding relative hardship, the Rent Control Authorities ought to have rejected the application since it is contrary to the statutory provisions. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that when all that the landlord wanted is additional space for storing his godown and when he had already got possession of the other shops on the same road, the authorities ought to have considered this fact. He also submitted that the respondent's case is that because of increased turnover he needs the extra space but there was no document to show increased business. It is the case of the landlord that now he is storing his goods in Tambaram and has to shift it to Chrompet and therefore, he wants the additional accommodation. But when the shop No. 2 is vac ated then it was open to the landlord to shift his godown to that shop so that he would not have to transfer is stock from Tambaram to Chrompet. To ask for eviction on this ground clearly shows that there are no bona fides. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the evidence of P. W. 1 where in cross examination, P. W. 1 has said that there are ledgers to show how such capital was ploughed in when the business was stated in 1987, but he also has admitted in his evidence that he has not increased the capital for the expansion. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out to this to show that this prima facie proved that the case of expansion the business is falls. He also referred to the evidence of P. W. 2 the son of the petitioner wherein he has stated that he has planed to increase his business. The learned Senior Counsel submits that mere desire to expand is not sufficient. The evidence in cross-examination of P. W. 2 also referred. Where the witness has stated that though there are documents to show the increase in turnover they have not been produced before Court. From this the Senior Counsel wanted adverse inference to be drawn. The learned Senior Counsel then referred to several decisions. (1) Jothi Ammal v. Kulandai Vadivel , 1998 (3) CTC 457; (2) Md. Jaffer v. Palaniappa Chettiar , 1964 (I) MLJ 112; (3) Shivaji Rao v. Bhulanga Rao , 1974 TLNJ 183; (4) Kuthalingam v. Jahir Hussain , 1997 (2) LW 470 and (5) Gangaram v. N. Shankar Reddy , AIR 1989 SC 302:1988 (4) SCC 648 to support his case.

(3.) NOW the authorities that were cited by the counsel may be taken up. First the decisions relied on by Mr. K. Alagirisamy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. (1) Jothi Ammal v. Kulandai Vadivel , 1998 (3) CTC 457. In this case building bearing door No. 18 and 18 (C) both were owned by landlord. Door No. 18 was in the occupation of the landlord and door No. 18 (C) in the occupation of the tenant. Two buildings were divided by a common wall. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. Eviction was ordered on the ground that the report of the advocate Commissioner appoint by the Rent Controller showed that there were two houses and the learned Judge held factually that the two door numbers are two different building, one was a terraced one and the other a tiled one and relying on the decision reported in Gangaram v. N. Shankar Reddy , AIR 1989 SC 302 dismissed the eviction petition. The learned Judge held that the fact that there was only a single wall between the two building did not make the entire building one, because the identity of the two building were different. Therefore, the learned Judge held Section 10 ( 3 ) (C) will not apply unless the building that are in question are portions of one and the same building. (2) Gangaram v. N. Shankar Reddy , AIR 1989 SC 302. This decision s was relied on by the learned Judge in the judgment reported above where the Supreme Court held that: What Section 10 (3 ) (C)envisages is the oneness of ownership of two different building, one occupied by the landlord and the other by the tenant.' (3) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , etc. v. B. Saravanan and others , 1997 (2) L. W. 81. In this case the landlords were residing in the eastern end of the entire property and the tenant was residing in the other corner and a lane separated the petition premises from the portion in occupation of the landlord. The learned Judge dismissed the application on the ground that when the landlord who is in occupation of one premises and wants to occupy the portion occupied by the tenant, since the area in his possession is insufficient then he could file an application under Section 10 (3) (C) of the act. Since the occupation of both landlord and tenant is in one building and one structure. In that case, since one facts it was found that the two premises could not they have been brought under the same roof, eviction was not granted.