RAHMANIA TRADING COMPANY Vs. M K PANDARINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to revise the order of the Court of Small Causes dated . 29th March, 1983 made in M.P.No.14 of 1982 in E.P.No. 752 of 1981 in H.R.C.No.1896 of 1978.

(2.) The respondent is the owner of premises No.13, Anna Pillai Street, Madras-1. One Syed Ahamed was a partner of M/s.Rahmania Trading Company, the petitioner herein. The other partners of the firm were his brother, one Mohammed Yacob, and another Mohammed Yusuf. The firm was carrying on business originally at No.64, Thatha MuthiaDDan Street, Madras-1.Under a registered lease deed dated 4th September, 1967 the respondent leased his premises No.13, Anna Pillai Street, Madras-1 to Syed Ahamed, son of T.S.Abdul Rahman, Partner, Rahmania Trading Company, residing at No.6, Vidyodaya Second East Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Madras-17 for the purpose of carrying on his business for a period of ten years on a monthly rent of Rs.300.00. It is now stated that Syed Ahamed retired from the partnership sometime in 1974, but this fact was neither known to the respondent, nor was he informed about it. By a lawyers notice dated 10th June, 1977, the respondent terminated the tenancy in favour of Syed Ahamed and called upon him to vacate the premises on the ground that the building is bona fide required for his own occupation for carrying on his own business. This was addressed to Syed Ahamed, describing him as Syed Ahamed, son of T.S.Abdul Rehaman, Partner, Rehmania Trading Company, No.6, Vidyodaya East 2nd Street, T.Nagar, Madras-17. It appears the said Syed Ahamed transmitted this notice to Rahmania Trading Company who by its letter dated 31st August, 1977 claimed that the lease was in favour of the firm, that Syed Ahamed was not a tenant in his individual capacity, that the lease deed was executed in favour of Syed Ahamed for and on behalf of Rahmania Trading Company, that there was a permanent lease in its favour and that, therefore, it cannot be evicted. The petitioner firm also contended that the notice terminating the tenancy treating Syed Ahamed as a tenant was not valid. However, in another letter dated 20th January, 1979,the petitioner informed the respondent that they are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and that it is not claiming any perpetual lease of the suit premises.

(3.) Notwithstanding the fact that Syed Ahamed disclaimed any leasehold interest in the premises and the firm Rahmania Trading Company asserted its right as a lessee, the respondent filed H.R.C.No. 1896 of 1978 against Syed Ahamed alone treating him as the only tenant in whose favqur a tenancy was given by him and refusing to accept that Rahmania Trading Company was a tenant under the respondent. The eviction was prayed for on three grounds, namely (1) that the premises is required bona fide for the owners use and occupation, (2) that the tenant, Syed Ahamed, had ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of more than three years without any reasonable cause as it is stated that he had ceased to be a partner and that fact had not been intimated to him and he was not carrying on any business and (3) that there has been a wilful denial of the landlords title by the tenant by assertion of permanent tenancy rights.