AMITHAKUMAR AMICHAND Vs. JAWANTHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner and the revision arises out of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) The respondents (landlords) filed H. R. C. No. 908 of 1978 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the first floor of the building bearing door No. 101 Narayana Mudali Street, Madras 1. The monthly rent is Rs. 450. The premises were let out both for residential and non-residential purposes. The landlords are in occupation of the ground floor which is not sufficient for their purposes. They are carrying on business in the front portion of the ground floor and residing in the remaining portions of the ground floor. Each of the three respondents, who have come to succeed to this property on the death of Raji Bai, has a separate family in the ground-floor. The daughter and son-in-law of the first respondent have come down to Madras and the son-in-law desires to set up medical practice and also open a clinic in the premises in occupation of the revision petitioner. Besides the second and third respondents are now proposing to set up their independent and separate business and carry on their business independently and thus the respondents bona fide require the first floor in the occupation of the revision petitioner by way of additional accommodation for both the purposes, namely, residential and non-residential. Hence, the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted.

(3.) A counter statement was filed by the revision petitioner stating that the petition for eviction, as framed, is not maintainable in law, since for both the purposes namely residential and non-residential, a single petition cannot be filed. The present petition has been filed as a counter-blast to HRC No. 3133 of 1977, which was one filed by the revision petitioner for restoration of amenities when the electricity supply was cut off. The respondents cannot claim additional accommodation for setting up of a clinic of the son-in-law of the first respondent. The portion in the occupation of the revision petitioner is not at all suitable for setting up a clinic. The hardship that is likely to be caused to the revision petitioner will outweigh the advantage that would ensue in favour of the respondent. The bona fide requirements of the respondents is denied. There are a number of buildings owned by the respondents in the city of Madras and hence the requirement cannot be considered to be bona fide. For a proposal business there can never be any additional accommodation.