POOLUDAIYAR CHETTIAR Vs. GANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred by the tenant as against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli, in R.C.A. No. 7 of 1994 reversing that of the learned Rent Controller, Tirunelveli, in R.C.O.P. No. 92 of 1992.

(2.) THE respondent/landowner sought for eviction of the tenant under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the petitioner he was doing business at door No. 69, West Car Street, Tirunelveli Town and he was the owner of the premises in question. As on the date of the petition, the tenant was paying monthly rent of Rs. 625. The landowner was doing business in sugarcane and wanted to have his own building for the purpose of his business and he was not having any non- residential building of his own. It is only for that purpose he purchased non-residential building with the sole idea of occupying the same for the purpose of his sugarcane business. Having purchased the property on 23.3.1992 he expressed his desire through his notice dated 4.5.1992. However, the tenant sent a reply on 9.5.1992 containing false and frivolous allegations. One Samsudeen has nothing to do with the schedule mentioned property and the building had been purchased by the petitioner only for the purpose of occupying it for his own business and the allegations contained in the reply notice dated 9.5.1992 were false. The petitioner was permanently residing at Palayamkottai. He was doing business in a rented building and he was not in occupation of any non-residential building and, therefore, entitled to have an order of eviction to be passed against the respondent. The requirement was bona fide. Unless the eviction order is passed, the petitioner will be put to heavy loss and damages.

(3.) THE tenant further contended that one Samsudeen who was a close relative of the petitioner had entered into a sale agreement with the original owner of the building. After entering into the sale agreement the said Samsudeen attempted to evict the respondent from building by force. Thereupon the tenant immediately filed O.S. No. 118 of 1992 before the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, and had obtained an injunction against the said Samsudeen. Only with a oblique motive for evicting the respondent from the schedule building, the said Samsudeen had purchased the same in the name of the petitioner since he has many other shops within Palayamkottai Municipality. The petition has been filed only on the instigation of Samsudeen. The tenant was doing grocery business at door No. 170, Kottur Road, Palayamkottai, and the schedule premises was being used as godown for the past 17 years and his family members are eking out their livelihood from the said business. The requirement of the petitioner was not bonafide and only in order to get exorbitant rent from the respondent, the petitioner has come forward to file petition for eviction. There was no necessity to shift the alleged business conducted by the petitioner from Tirunvelveli Town to Palayamkottai. The petitioner was also having many buildings in his name within the Municipality of Tirunelveli and Palayamkottai. Therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed.