A. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SAHEB Vs. A. PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been placed before a Division Bench in view of conflict of judicial opinion regarding the proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 7(3)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. Venkatadri, J., who heard the petition in the first instance, has referred to three decisions of single Judges of this Court, in his order of reference and, has observed that they manifest diversity of views on the subject.

(2.) WE shall first set out the facts giving rise to this Civil Revision Petition before discussing the question of law raised in the case. It will be convenient to refer to the petitioner as the tenant and the respondent as the landlord in this judgment. The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 (XXV of 1949) will hereafter be referred to as the Act. The landlord is the owner of a building in the Municipal Town of Erode which consists of one block. A plan has been filed before us and it can be referred to just for the purpose of knowing the topography of the place where the building is situate. On the east the building is bounded by a public street called R.K.V. Road and on the west there is another public street called Nethaji Road. Facing east and facing west there are several shops, each bearing a distinct and separate door number. These shops are let out to various tenants and they are in the ground floor of the building. Most of the shops on both the roads have a terraced roof. The tenant in the present case is carrying on business in the shop Door No. 290, facing Nethaji Road. In between the two rows of shops there is a mandi or god own in the possession and occupation of the landlord. As stated already, the building is in one block though portions of. the building have been let out to various persons for non -residential purposes. There is no dispute that the landlord is having his residence in the first floor over the shops facing R.K.V. Road. There is also no dispute that the upstairs portions of the shops bearing Door Nos. 287, 288, 289, 290 and 291 facing Nethaji Road are in the possession of the landlord. There is some controversy as to whether the landlord is in occupation of the upstairs portion in Nethaji Road. The tenant does not deny the fact that the landlord has not let out this upstairs portion to anybody.

(3.) WE must point out at this stage that though the application for eviction purported to be one under Section 7(2)(ii) of the Act, the substance of the averments in the eviction application really indicates that the application was preferred under Section 7(3)(c). There cannot be any doubt that the tenant himself understood the ground for eviction as one based on the latter provision. The parties, therefore, went to trial before the Rent Controller on this single issue, viz., whether the land lord bona fide requires additional accommodation for his residential purposes and whether there are sufficient grounds for evicting the tenant under Section 7(3)(c) of the Act.