C.SUSILA DEVI Vs. S.GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords are the revision petitioners. They are aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority whereby their application seeking for eviction of the respondent/tenant filed under Section 10(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act came to be rejected. The petitioners filed R.C.O.P No. 899 of 1999 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court at Chennai against the respondent herein under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, seeking for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. The case of the petitioners before the Rent Controller is that the second petitioner is carrying on the partnership business of medical equipments under the name and style of "Medifield Equipments Corporation" in the first floor of the subject matter building at No. 278, Pycrafts Road, Triplicane, Chennai 5. The said premises originally belonged to one C. Thiruvengada Gupta. He died on 20.7.1994 leaving behind the petitioners as his surviving legal heirs. The first floor portion, which is in occupation of the second petitioner for running the medical equipments business, has become congested in view of employment of several persons and also by stocking of various medical equipments. Therefore, the second petitioner is in need of extra place to expand his business and to keep the stock of his medical equipments such as Operation Theatre lights, Operation Theatre Tables, Anaesthesia Machines, Orthopaedic implants, Lab equipments etc. Thus, the second petitioner bonafidely requires additional accommodation of the entire ground floor wherein the respondent is occupying as the tenant.

(2.) It is their further case that the respondent is their tenant in the ground floor at Door No. 278, Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Chennai and is carrying on textile business under the name and style of Sundaram Silks. The respondent is possessing several other buildings of his own and also carrying on textile business in the same area and therefore he can conveniently amalgamate, accommodate and shift his business within the same area. It is also specifically stated by the petitioners that they do not own any other building within the city and their requirement is a bonafide one. They also pleaded that additional accommodation, if granted, would be advantageous to the landlord for developing his business and no hardship would be caused to the tenant.

(3.) The said application was resisted by the respondent herein. It is stated by him that he is carrying on business mainly on rented buildings only. He borrowed huge sum from Bank and stocked the goods in the premises. He had employed more than 15 people in the shop. He had invested huge sum on interior decoration, stocks and labourers. It is only out of vindictiveness, the petitioners are seeking eviction. The petitioners do not need the premises bonafidely. It is only with an intention to harm and hamper the development of the good business of the respondent, the petitioners have come forward with the eviction petition.