G N CHAKKARAPANY CHETTY Vs. YENARKAY RAVINDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming an order of the Rent Controller ordering eviction of the tenant petition filed by the landlord for his own use and occupation of the premises under Sec.10(3) (a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

(2.) THE landlord (respondent herein) has filed the petition for eviction of the tenant (petitioner herein) on the ground that he is manufacturing safety matches in Sivakasi and he is business in safety matches throughout India and for his business in Tirunelveli he requires his petition premises for using it as a godown for storing safety matches.

(3.) IT appears the Rent Controller dismissed the landlord's petition, but on appeal the was allowed and there was a revision petition filed in this Court in C.R.P.No.3614 of in that the learned single judge observed that from the records it is obvious that both have proceeded on the footing that the landlord need not prove bona fides for the purpose getting an order of eviction under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act but now it has been held Supreme Court in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. Mohan Lal Sowcar, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. that a landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from a non-residential premises under (a)(iii) of the Act, to succeed in his petition, should prove that he bona fide requires premises in addition to proving the other ingredients referred to in that sub-section, learned Judge remanded the matter for fresh disposal giving liberty to the parties to further evidence.