POOLUDAIYAR CHETTIAR Vs. GANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the tenant as against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli, in R.C.A.No.7 of 1994 reversing that of the learned Rent Controller, Tirunelveli, in R.C.O.P.No.92 of 1992.

(2.) The respondent/land owner sought for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the petitioner he was doing business at Door No.69, West Car Street, Tirunelveli Town and he was the owner of the premises in question. As on the date of the petition, the tenant was paying monthly rent of Rs.625/-. The land owner was doing business in sugarcane and wanted to have his own building for the purpose of his business and he was not having any non-residential building of his own. It is only for that purpose he purchased non-residential building with the sole idea of occupying the same for the purpose of his sugarcane business. Having purchased the property on 23.3.1992 he expressed his desire through his notice dated 4.5.1992. However, the tenant sent a reply on 9.5.1992 containing false and frivolous allegations. One Samsudeen has nothing to do with the schedule mentioned property and the building had been purchased by the petitioner only for the purpose of occupying it for his own business and the allegations contained in the reply notice dated 9.5.1992 were false. The petitioner was permanently residing at Palayamkottai. He was doing business in a rented building and he was not in occupation of any non-residential building and therefore, entitled to have an order of eviction to be passed against the respondent. The requirement was bona fide. Unless the eviction order is passed, the petitioner will be put to heavy loss and damages.

(3.) In the counter filed by the tenant while denying the allegations contained in the petition, the tenant would also contend that the petitioner was not doing any business in sugarcane. It was equally false to say that he was not having any non-residential building. The requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and the nature of the alleged business does not require the premises. The accommodation sought for by the petitioner was not suited for the alleged business.