GEORGE ALEXANDER MUTHOOT Vs. S MOHAMMED JALEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree made in R.C.A.No.117 of 2012 by the tenant aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority on the ground of additional accommodation.

(2.) The respondent herein as the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.1135 of 2009 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai seeking for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of additional accommodation by contending that the petition mentioned premises is needed as additional accommodation for running his textile business since the portion in which he is carrying on such business is not sufficient. The said application was resisted by the tenant by contending that the ground floor portion which is in occupation of the landlord is sufficient to run his business and there is no hectic business activity of the landlord which needs for additional accommodation. It is also contended by the tenant that the landlord owns an extent of 1330 sq.ft. of vacant portion in the second floor which he can very well occupy. The learned Rent Controller considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidences let in by both sides and ordered eviction. The learned Rent Controller by relying on a decision of this Court rendered in (A.P.Abdul Rasheed vs. M/s.Hotel K.K.Residency rep. By Managing Partner K.M.Thajudeen,2010 CDJ 4862) found that the tenant cannot dictate terms with regard to the portion of the premises which the landlord has to occupy. It is also found that the landlord has proved that he is already carrying on business and his need for additional accommodation is a bonafide one. The learned Rent Controller rejected the contention raised by the tenant that there is no expansion of the business by the landlord. It is also found by the Rent Controller that the tenant has not let in any evidence contra to the facts pleaded by the landlord with regard to the hardship to be caused if the petition mentioned premises is not given to him as additional accommodation. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the learned Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered eviction. Further appeal filed by the tenant before the appellate authority was dismissed by specifically holding that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to what is to be his requirement. It is also found by the appellate court that the landlord has proved his bonafide requirement by showing that the business is improving year by year. Insofar as the question of hardship is concerned, the appellate authority found that the hardship would be more to the landlord than the tenant since the tenant is having several branches in the City of Chennai as well as all over the Tamil Nadu. Such factual finding rendered by both the Courts below are challenged before this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Admittedly the landlord is carrying on his business in the ground floor and the tenant is carrying on the business in the first floor. The landlord seeks for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation to occupy the first floor portion so that he can run the business both in ground and first floor. It is needless to say that when a business is being run in the ground floor, the premises sought as additional accommodation, if has the immediate access to the premises which is already in occupation of the landlord, certainly such premises will be highly beneficial than that of the other premises which is not having the immediate access to the premises of the landlord. By keeping in mind that the eviction is sought for on the ground of additional accommodation, the contention of the tenant that the second floor which became vacant has not been utilized by the landlord has to be rejected, in view of the above position. In any event, the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to which of the portion he has to seek as additional accommodation.