SYED SAFIULLAH HUSAINI Vs. M RAGHUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the landlord. He filed application for eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also for his own occupation. The Rent Controller allowed the application on the ground of owner's occupation and dismissed the application on the ground of wilful default. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the appellate authority allowed the appeal holding that the requirement of the landlord/revision petitioner is not bona fide and dismissed the application for eviction filed by the revision petitioner. Hence, this revision.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the appellate authority, without properly appreciating the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, erred in holding that the there is no bona fide on the part of the revision petitioner in claiming the premises. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it has been specifically stated in the petition that the premises is required for the petitioner's son for his business in software as he is qualified in that field. It is further stated that the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his son, who is an Engineer, to start the software business. PW1, the revision petitioner, also gave evidence to that effect and the son of the revision petitioner also was examined as PW2 and he has also given evidence that he is a graduate in Electronic Science and he wants to start a business in computer software in the premises and he has got means to commence the business and he is already doing repairs of computers and therefore, he, bona fide, requires the building for his own business. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, therefore, submitted that without appreciating the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent on the ground that the requirement is not bona fide as the revision petitioner had disconnected electricity three months prior to the filing of the petition for eviction and after the tenant filed application for restoration of amenities, an order was passed in that regard and the electricity was restored and therefore, the appellate authority held that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that due to non payment of rent from January 2003, the electricity supply was disconnected and when the rent was paid, that amenity was restored and that cannot be construed as a mala fide act on the part of the landlord.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted that admittedly, the building consists of ground floor and first floor and in the ground floor, in the front portion, there are two shops and in the rear portion, the revision petitioner is residing with his family and admittedly, the son of the revision petitioner is doing repairs in a portion of the residential portion which is situate on the rear side and therefore, the portion in which the son of the revision petitioner is doing computer repairs can be construed as a nonresidential portion and if so construed, the revision petitioner is not entitled to claim the portion in the occupation of the tenant as the revision petitioner is already in possession of a non-residential portion. He further submitted that having regard to the fact that the electricity was disconnected with a view to evict the respondent, the appellate authority has rightly held that there is no bona fide and relied upon the judgment of this court in T. S. Sethuraman v. J. Nagalakshmi, 1997 3 CTC 339, and also the judgment in The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Coop. Society Ltd. v. V. Natarajan, 2010 6 CTC 454 in support of his contention. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in V. Radhakrishnan v. S. N. Loganatha Mudaliar, 1998 3 CTC 108 in support of his contention.