S V JANARDANAM Vs. D KIVRAJ SOWKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above civil revision petition, the petitioners challenges the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.1 of 1996 whereby the petitioners/ landlords were non-suited for the relief of eviction on the ground of requirement of the premises for owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) on the ground that the petitioners have not proved their bona fide in respect of their requirement.

(2.) THE petitioners are brothers and they purchased the demised property on 31.1.1993. THE respondents/tenants are in possession and occupation of the building having three door numbers viz., 161, 162 and 163, Gandhi Road, Sriperumbudur. Door No. 162 is a residential premises and Door Nos.161 and 163 are non-residential premises. On 31.5.1993, the petitioners/ landlords purchased the entire property. THE first petitioner purchased the property bearing Door No.161 and a half share in property bearing Door No.162. THE second petitioner has purchased the rest of the half share in the property bearing Door No.162 and the entire property bearing Door No. 163 on the very same day. THE respondents/tenants were in occupation and possession of the demised premises even prior to their purchase. Door Nos.161 and 163 are used by the respondents for the purpose of pawn broker business and Door No. 162 is being used as a residential premises. THE first petitioner has a wife and one son and the second petitioner has wife and son. All of them are living together along with their parents in a rented premises. THE petitioners are not owning any other residential premises except the demised premises and as such, Door No. 162, the residential building is required for their own use and occupation.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority is in consonance with the well settled principle that for invoking the provisions of Sections 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii), the requirement must be a bona fide requirement. On the materials made available before the authorities below, the authorities have come to the conclusion that the requirement of the petitioners is not a bona fide. For coming to such a conclusion, the authorities have relied on the evidence of the petitioners themselves that the petitioners own two other buildings and the factum of owning of two other buildings by the petitioners has been totally suppressed. By suppressing this vital material fact, they come forward with a petition for eviction of the respondents on the ground of bona fide requirement. Hence, the requirement of the petitioners cannot be considered as a bona fide, particularly, when P.W. 1 admitted in his evidence that the petitioners are having two houses.