SARASWATHI ALIAS SASIKALA Vs. SYED IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner herein. THE landlady filed a petition for eviction against the tenant under Sec. l0 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. THE case of the landlady is as under: She purchased the petition premises from one Krishnamurthy under a registered sale deed dated 25. 6. 1986. THE petition premises is having three Door numbers namely 7, 8 and 9. For Door No. 7 the monthly rent isrs. 100 and for Door Nos. 8 and 9 the monthly rent is Rs. 100. THE tenant is using the entire premises as a godown. THE husband of the landlady is an unemployed person. THE landlady is looking after her household work. Both the husband and wife now desire to start a mess in the petition premises. THEy are having sufficient means to start the mess. THE landlady is not having any other premises of her own in the same town. Hence the landlady required the petition premises for conducting a mess under Sec. l0 (3) (a) (iii)of the Act. THE landlady sent a notice to the tenant on 10. 11. 1986, calling upon the tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession. THE tenant sent a reply dated 18. 11. 1986 refusing to vacate the premises.

(2.) THE case of the tenant is as under : THE respondent herein alone is not a tenant in respect of the petition premises. According to the tenant he is a partner in the partnership concern with the other partner and the firm is the tenant in the petition premises. THErefore without impleading the other partners, the petition is not maintainable. THE husband of the landlady is doing pawnbroker business. THE landlady is having several premises of her own in the same town and it is not correct to state that the husband of the landlady is an unemployed person. Since the tenant refused to pay higher rent as demanded by the landlady she came forward with the present revision petition. THE landlady and her husband are not having any previous experience in conducting the mess. THErefore the requirement of the petition premises by the landlady is not bona fide. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE tenant contended that he is a partner in the partnership firm and the partnership firm is the tenant in respect of the petition premises. In as much as all the partners were not impleaded the petition is liable to be dismissed. But the fact remains that both the authorities below have concurrently came to the conclusion that the partnership firm is not a tenant, but only the individual is the tenant. No fresh material was placed before this Court to dislodge this finding.