CHEKKA RAMANIAH Vs. S MARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the petitioners in all these revisions. THE first respondent is the husband of the second respondent. THE respondents are the owners of the premises bearing door No. 290, Bharathi Salai, Pycrofts Road , Triplicane , Madras -5. THE petition for eviction was filed against all these tenants on the ground of owner's occupation under Sec. l0 (3) (a) (iii)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). In so far as the tenants in c. R. P. Nos. 2729 and 395 of 1991 are concerned, the eviction petitions were also filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under Sec. 10 (2) ( i ) of the Act. THE petitioners in C. R. P. Nos. 2729 of 1989 and 395 of 1991 are the joint tenants under the respondents herein for the entire premises except three shops in the front portion of the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 1 ,000. THE petitioner in C. R. P. No. 429 of 1991 is in occupation of one shop in the front portion of the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 300. THE petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1130 of 1991 is in occupation of one shop in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 175.

(2.) IN so far as the petition for eviction filed under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act is concerned, the landlord filed one single petition against all the tenants. The case of the landlords is as under: The respondents herein purchased the petition premises under a sale deed dated 30. 4. 1984. Soon after the execution of the sale deed, this fact was intimated to the tenants by the present landlords as well as by the prior owners. Some of the tenants attorned their tenancy in favour of the present landlords. The landlords are carrying on medical shop business at No. 274, Bharathi Salai , Triplicane , madras-5, which is a rented building. They are now under the threat of eviction since their landlord filed a petition for eviction against them on the ground of additional accommodation. The first respondent herein is a chemist in simpson & Co. , and he has got wide experience in dealing with medicines. The landlords wanted to carry on their business in medicines in a big way, in the entire petition premises consisting of only ground and the first floor. The landlords are not in occupation of any other non-residential building of their own in the city of Madras. The landlords sent notices to the tenants on 24. 8. 1984 calling upon them to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises. The petitioners in c. R. P. No. 2729 of 1989 evaded the service of notice. Some of the tenants sent their replies on 6. 9. 1984 and on 14. 9. 1984 expressing their refusal to vacate the premises.

(3.) THE learned senior Counsel Mr. R. Sundaravaradha n , appearing for the respondents/landlords submitted as under: THE first respondent is a Chemist. He was working in simpson and Company as Chemist and he is now retired. THEy are doing their medical shop business at No. 274, Bharathi Salai , Triplicane , which is a rented premises. Since the landlord of the said premises required the same for his occupation, the respondents herein filed the present petition for eviction against the tenants. No doubt, the landlords are doing their medical shop business in a rented premises , which admeasures approximately about 100 sq. ft. THE petition premises is consisting of the ground floor and the first floor. THE plinth area of the petition premises would be about 3,000 sq. ft . THE landlords now wanted to shift their medical shop business from the rented premises and they desired to conduct their medical business in a big way in the petition premises. THErefore, it is not correct on the part of the tenants to suggest that since the landlords are now doing their business in a smaller place and hence their requirement of the petition premises, which is larger in siz e is not bona fide. Since the landlords required the entire premises bona fide one single petition is sufficient for seeking eviction against all the tenants. In a petition for eviction under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, what is necessary to prove is the bona fide requirement of the landlord. In the present case, the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the entire petition premises under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii)of the Act. THErefore, it is not correct on the part of the tenants to state that the bona fide requirement was not established in the case of each tenant. THE petition premises wa s purchased for the purpose of doing their business. In clause (4) of the lease deed executed between the tenants and the prior owner of the premises, it is stated that if the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent, for the two consecutive months, then the landlord is entitled to ask for eviction. In the present case, the tenantsnnc. R. P. Nos. 395 of 1991 and 2729 of 1989 committed wilful default in payment of rent. THErefore, when the forfeiture clause begins to operate, it is open to the landlords to file a petition for eviction on any one of the grounds available to them. THErefore, the proviso (d) to Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of this case.