SIRONMANI Vs. C.D. ANNA SHOLLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlady/respondent herein has filed RCOP No. 61 of 2010 before the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of Owners Own Use and Occupation for non-residential use. The Rent Controller held that the requirement of the landlady/respondent herein is bona fide, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on appeal filed by the tenant in R.C.A. No. 408 of 2011. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant has come forward with this Revision Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that courts below did not consider the definition "carrying on business" provided under the Act. The petition mentioned premises was let out to the petitioner for non-residential use. While so, the landlady/respondent has not proved that her requirement to occupy the petition mentioned premises for her own use and occupation for carrying on non-residential business was not proved in a manner known to law by producing oral or documentary evidence. It was also not proved that as on the date of filing the Rent Control Original Petition, the landlady/ respondent was carrying on any business. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by both the courts below that the premises is required for the landlady to carry on non-residential business is liable to be interfered with. Both the courts below also failed to take note of the fact that in the first floor of the petition mentioned premises, the landlady/respondent herein owns her own property and that property was let out to tenant for rent. Therefore also, the alleged requirement to occupy the petition mentioned premises for carrying on non-residential premises is not bona fide but mala fide. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the landlady has separately filed an application in R.C.O.P. No. 840 of 2008 for fixation of fair rent and the same was allowed on 07.12.2009. As against the same, the tenant/revision petitioner filed R.C.A. No. 81 of 2010 and the same is pending. Therefore, the learned counsel for the tenant/revision petitioner would contend that on the one hand, the landlady has filed Rent Control Original Petition for fixation of fair rent and on the other hand, she filed the instant petition for eviction on the ground of owners own use and occupation. Therefore, the intention of the landlady in filing the present petition is only to harass the tenant/revision petitioner and the requirement is not bona fide. The revision petitioner is carrying on non-residential business for the past 20 years by promptly paying the rent month after month and therefore, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed for allowing the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Contra, the learned counsel for the landlady/respondent herein would contend that no doubt, the landlady is the owner of a portion of the premises in the first floor of the petition mentioned premises and the other half share portion owned by her brother. Therefore, the landlady/respondent is not in occupation of the petition mentioned premises physically or directly and it was let out to tenant. According to the counsel for the respondent, the owning of a portion in the first floor of the petition mentioned is not a bar for the respondent to seek for eviction of the tenant on the ground of owners own use and occupation. As far as bona fides in seeking eviction, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner is a destitute widow and she has been eking out her livelihood with the rental income received from the tenant who is occupying a portion of the first floor of the petition mentioned premises. At the time when the landlady filed the Rent Control Original Petition, she was pursuing her law degree and presently she has completed the same. Therefore, the landlady intended to set up a xerox and typing unit in the petition mentioned premises for which she also underwent a training and obtained a certificate. This shows that the landlady has taken steps to set up her own business and considering the same, both the courts below have rightly held that the landlady has proved the bona fides in seeking to utilise the petition mentioned premises for her own use and occupation and ordered for eviction of the tenant from the petition mentioned premises and he prayed for dismissal of the Civi Revision Petition.