SARASWATHI AMMAL Vs. S. PERUMALSWAMY CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the revision petition is the landlady, and the respondent is the tenant. The petitioner filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 180 of 1980 under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960) seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground that the petitioner required the building bonafide for her doing business of her own and also for carrying out repairs in the premises. She alleged in the petition that the rent payable by the respondent was Rs. 108/- per mensem and that the respondent had committed default in the payment of rent from April, 1980, but paid the entire rent only after the issue of notice by the petitioner. She also alleged that the building which was let out to the respondent was in disrepair having leakage of water etc., and so the building should be given to the petitioner to carry out repairs. She further alleged that she had made arrangement to start a business in the premises and that for the purpose also the building is required for carrying out repairs immediately. A notice by the petitioner terminating the tenancy of the respondent is said to have been repudiated by a reply by the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent in his counter denied the claim of the petitioner and stated that the building did not require any immediate repairs and that the requirement of the petitioner in respect of the petition building is not bonafide as she was not carrying on any business. He added that the petitioner owns six houses and six shops and that the petition has been filed with a notice to get enhanced rent. After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller (Second Additional District Munsif, Trichy) dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner has not established her bonafide in seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of requirement of the petition building for running business of her own and that the petition building did not require major repairs to be effected and that even otherwise, the petitioner had not given undertaking that she would give back the petition building to the respondent after carrying out the repairs.

(3.) I heard both sides. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has sought eviction of the respondent from the petition building on two grounds, i.e. (1) that she requires the building bonafide for doing business and (2) that she repairs and that both the grounds have been found against by both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Though the petitioner has preferred this revision challenging even the finding of the Appellate Authority given on the petitioner's requirement of the building for carrying out repairs under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, it has been given up by the petitioner during the enquiry before this Court. Therefore, we may confine ourselves to the only question whether the petitioner requires the petition building bonafide for doing business. There is no legal impediment for the petitioner to restrict her claim as such. Each of the grounds under which the petitioner seeks eviction is to be viewed separately. But the judgment of the Appellate Authority indicates that he has combined both the claims and given a verdict against the petitioner for the reason that he has found one claim to be inconsistent with the other. It has to be said that both the grounds for eviction are governed by separate and independent statutory provisions and so one should not be allowed to interfere with the other.