SHA NIRBHAYALA BAHADURMAL Vs. KRISHNA RAO M NIKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revision petitions, one by the landlord and another by one of the tenants (first respondent before the, Rent Controller) against the common judgment passed by the Appellate Authority. For the sake of convenience, the term .petitioner. hereinafter refers to the landlord and the term .respondent., wherever it occurs will mean the tenant Shah Nirbhayalal Bahadurmal (first respondent before the Rent Controller).

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord filed the petition for eviction of three tenants on the ground of commission of acts of waste by the respondent, conversion of the building for different user by the respondent and requirement for owner.s occupation. THE tenants denied all the grounds and the Rent Controller found that the tenant has committed acts of waste, but rejected the other two grounds, namely, conversion by the tenant and requirement for own occupation. Consequently, eviction was ordered. THE respondent and the landlord preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority against the respective adverse findings and the Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals confirming the order of eviction of the respondent-tenant (Shah Nirbhayalal Bahadurmal) alone. Hence these two revision petitions, C.R.P. No. 2821 of 1980 by the landlord and C.R.P. No. 2170 of 1980 by the respondent-tenant.

(3.) THE other ground of eviction is requirement for own occupation. Hereagain, both the Courts below found that the landlord has not made out a case. Even in the petition for eviction, the landlord vaguely stated that he desires to start a business in textile goods in the city of Madras and therefore, requires the premises for that purpose. It is important to note, that it is not even disclosed in his petition what business he proposed to start in Madras City. Admittedly, the landlord is a businessman permanently residing at Kancheepuram and he is not carrying on any business at Madras. Even in his notice under Exhibit P-1, the landlord has not mentioned about his alleged requirement of the demised premises for carrying on his business. THE Rent Controller has pointed out that the case of the landlord itself was very half-hearted in this respect. Though the eviction petition was prepared and signed by the landlord even as early as on 1st September, 1976, it was actually presented before the Court only on 15th February, 1977 after a lapse of 5. months. Even then, he had not made any preparation for the commencement of the business at Madras. Of course, he has produced some documents, Exhibits P-4 to P-6 and P-15 to show that he is taking steps to start a business, but those documents were rightly rejected since they came into existence long after the filing of the petition in this case. THE Rent Controller also found that the landlord was doing only commission business in handloom goods at Kancheepuram and that there was no purchase or sale as such. Consequently, it was found that the requirement for starting a shop at Madras was not bona fide. I do not see any reason to interefere with the concurrent findings of the lower Courts which appear to be just and proper. laterally by the tenant for the purpose of a show-room without the consent of the landlord amount to commission of acts of waste.