S BASKARAN Vs. S THARABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the tenant. THE respondents/landlords filed the RCOP.No.83 of 2009 before the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai, for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation and the same was ordered and confirmed in RCA.No.212 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai. Hence this revision.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that admittedly the landlords are the owners of three shops facing New Avadi Road and the premises of the revision petitioner/tenant is the middle shop and the landlords/respondents are having office behind the three shops and without any basis, the landlords have filed the application for eviction against the revision petitioner alone without taking action against the other two tenants and there is no valid reason for selecting the revision petitioner and therefore, the requirement of landlords, seeking additional accommodation is not bonafide. He further contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate the hardship there may be caused to the tenant by ordering eviction will out weigh the advantage of the respondents/landlords and it is very difficult for the tenant to find out the alternate accommodation in that locality and the revision petitioner is doing business in that premises for more than thirty years and therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside.

(3.) FURTHER, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the landlords have willfully chosing revision petitioner premises without chosing the other two shops cannot also accepted. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and our High Court that the tenant cannot dictate as to which premises the landlords can choose for additional accommodation and in this case, it has been proved by the landlords that by removing the common wall the landlords can access to the tenanted portion let out to the revision petitioner and for that purpose only they require the tenanted portion for additional accommodation and other portion cannot be used in such a manner. FURTHER the revision petitioner also admitted that the landlords have not demanded enhancement of rent from him. Considering all these aspects the court below has rightly ordered eviction.