R KRISHNASWAMY Vs. N ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner herein. THE petition for eviction was filed under Secs.l0(3)(c) and 14(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1976, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". THE landlord purchased the petition premises along with the downstair portion from one Ramasubramania Iyer on 6.5.1982. THE tenant is in occupation of the upstair portion and the staircase. THE tenant was in the petition premises even prior to the purchase of the premises by the landlord. In the downstair portion the landlord is conducting a general merchant shop. THE tenant is doing business as a newspaper agent. According to the landlord, the portion under his occupation is not sufficient for his business. Hence, he required the portion under the occupation of the tenant bona fide by way of additional accommodation under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. According to the landlord, the petition premises required extensive repairs. THErefore, he also required the petition premises for repairs under Sec.14(a) of the Act. THE tenant filed a suit for injunction against the landlord in O.S.No.523 of 1982 and obtained an order of interim injunction against the landlord. THE landlord sent a notice to the tenant dated 16.8.1982 calling upon him to quit and deliver the vacant possession. THE tenant sent a reply dated 24.9.1982 refusing to vacate. Hence, the landlord came forward with this petition for eviction.

(2.) ACCORDING to the tenant the portion under the occupation of the landlord is sufficient to carry on his business. The tenant submitted that the landlord does not require the portion under the occupation of the tenant bona fide under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. ACCORDING to the tenant, the petition premises is in good condition. Therefore, it requires no repairs. It was, therefore, pleaded that the petition for eviction is liable to be dismissed. The landlord filed Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5. The tenant filed Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-10. Ex.C-1 is the report filed by the commissioner. The landlord examined himself as P.W.I. The tenant examined himself as R.W.I Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the request of the landlord for eviction under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act and under Sec.l4(a)of the Act cannot be acceded to. ACCORDINGly, the petition for eviction was dismissed. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. ACCORDINGly, the Rent Control Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. In so far as the order passed by the Rent Controller under Sec. 14(a) of the Act is concerned, the same was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is against this order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenant.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned senior counsel, Mr.T.R.Mani,appearing for the landlord/respondent herein submitted as under: The landlord purchased the petition premises for the purpose of expanding his business. The landlord is doing business in the downstair portion as a general merchant and also doing the business in crackers. The portion under the occupation of the landlord is 8 feet x 15 feet. The tenant is not carrying on his business in the upstair portion. In the staircase, he pulled down three steps and constructed a platform, on which he is doing his business as newspaper agent. The report filed by the commissioner would go to show that in the upstair portion the tenant dumped a cartload of sand. The upstair portion was also not kept in good condition. The roof with palm leaves and tin sheets is also in a bad condition. In that small space, the landlord has sunk Rs.5,000 by way of capital for his business and he is earning Rs.300 to Rs.400 per month from the said business. In fact, the tenant has vacated the premises and he is doing his business in a different place. The tenant also sublet the portion under his occupation to a third party, who is doing his business there. The subsequent development of events would go to show that the tenant is not occupation of the petition premises. According to the landlord if the tenant is not vacated that would cause great hardship to him. It was, therefore pleaded that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was correct in ordering eviction under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. Since the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is based upon facts, no further interference is called for.