K M RANGANATHAN Vs. S SANKARALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner. THE landlord filed R.C.O.P under Section 10(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) 18/60 (in short "the Act").

(2.) THE case of the landlord/petitioner is as follows: " THE petitioner is the owner of the property described in the petition schedule. THE respondent has been inducted as the tenant for the period of three years from 15.1.1982 to 15.1.1985 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. THEre is an advance payment of Rs. 15,000/- paid by the respondent to the petitioner. As per clause-6 of the agreement, it has been agreed that after the expiry of the lease period of three years, if the tenant continues in the petition mentioned property with the consent of the petitioner, he is liable to pay enhanced rent of Rs. 1200/- per month. Under this condition, the respondent is continuing in the occupation of the petition mentioned property, but the respondent has been paying Rs. 1000/- only. Atlast, the respondent agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1,250/- from 16.5.90 onwards. THE tenanted premises under the occupation of the respondent is in Door No. 392 and in respect of the adjacent portion of tenanted premises, which is under the occupation of the petitioner is in Door No. 391, wherein the petitioner is running a flour mill in the rear side of his premises in Door No. 391 under the name and style "Manickam Flour Mill". In the front side of the petitioner's premises in Door No. 391., the petitioner's son by name K.R. Parthasarathy is doing business in General Merchants and maligai goods especially wheat and wheat products under the name and style "Cow and Calf brand products. THE petitioner's son product achieved a unique name and reputation among the wholesale dealers and it has attained popularity and therefore, for expanding its show-room facilities and for its wide publicity, the petitioner w as insisting the respondent for vacating the petition mentioned property on the ground of additional accommodation. Further, the petitioner's another son by name Venkatesan is also a dealer in the similar line of business at Door No. 391 and hence for his expansion of the business also, the petitioner requires additional accommodation. THE petitioner's flour mill and his two sons business are under the same roof in Door No. 391, which is very unaccommodative and the petitioner's sons are put to very much hardship in carrying on their trade. Though the petitioner was all along demanding the premises for additional accommodation, the petitioner lost hope in settling the issue with the respondent. THE respondent began to infringe the petitioner's son trade mark and brand name "Cow and Calf Products", which resulted in the trade mark suit filed in O.S. No. 18 of 90 on the file of District Judge, Coimbatore. Hence, the petitioner has issued legal notice to the respondent on 24.7.90 calling upon the respondent to vacate and handover the petition mentioned premises on or before 15.8.90. THE petitioner also sought eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent from 16.5.90 onwards at Rs. 1250/- per month. THE respondent denied that he is liable to pay monthly rent of Rs. 1250/-. THE respondent has sent two cheques for Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- representing three months arrears of rent. THE petitioner reserves the right to seek eviction on the ground of respondent's wilful default in the payment of rent, if the cheques sent by the respondent are bounced or dishonoured. THE claim of the petitioner is bonafide. THErefore, the respondent is liable to be evicted and handover possession to the petitioner.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the respondent is the tenant of the premises bearing Door No. 392 and the petitioner is the landlord. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act contending that he and his two sons are carrying on business in D. No. 391 and that they require the premises i.e., Door No. 392 in possession of the tenant for additional accommodation. The landlord has adduced overwhelming documentary evidence to show that he and his two sons are carrying on business.