RAJA DRESSES; BEAUTY SHOE MART Vs. A LALITHAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The deceased Lalithamba, who is the owner of the petition mentioned premises, has filed RCOP Nos. 950 and 951 of 2001 under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for eviction of the tenants on the ground of 'additional accommodation'. The Rent Control Original Petitions were dismissed on 13.09.2002 against which the landlady filed R.C.A. Nos. 988 of 2003 and 1159 of 2003 respectively before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and they were allowed on 22.01.2013. As against the same, the tenants are before this Court with these two Civil Revision Petitions.

(2.) The landlady has filed RCOP Nos. 950 and 951 of 2001 contending that her son is running a Printing Press in the name and style of M/s. Packo Graphics in the rear side of the petition mentioned premises. Since the printing press is in the rear side of the petition mentioned premises, it is not easily identifiable by the customers which had seriously affected the business prospects of her son. Further, there is a 2'6" passage adjacent to the stair case which is very narrow and shifting or removal of machinery has become a difficult task. The petitioner's son therefore intended to have an office space in the petition mentioned premises and for this purpose, the landlady requested the tenants to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition mentioned premises so as to enable her son to carry on the printing press business. The landlady also caused a statutory notice dated 29.12.2000 reiterating her demand. Thereafter, the landlady has filed RCOP Nos. 950 and 951 of 2001 before the learned Rent Controller praying to direct the tenants to vacate and handover the petition mentioned premises for being used as an additional accommodation by her son to carry on the printing press business.

(3.) The Rent Control Original Petitions have been resisted by both the tenants by filing counter. According to the revision petitioners/tenants, the intention of the landlady is only to harass the tenants who have been carrying on their business for the past 20 years and earned reputation thereof. According to the tenants, the requirement for additional accommodation is not bonafide but malafide. The son of the landlady is not carrying on any business, as alleged.