ARUMUGHAM Vs. KRISHNASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORDS , who succeeded before the 'Rent Controller but failed before the Appellate Authority, have preferred this revision. Eviction was sought on two grounds : (1) Unauthorised subletting and (2) requirement for own occupation for the purpose of business. The Rent Controller granted order of eviction upholding the claim of the landlords on both the counts. The Appellate Authority has reversed the same and dismissed the application for eviction.

(2.) AS regards sub-letting, the petitioner's case is that the first respondent is the tenant and he sublet to one Sekar Transport, a partnership firm. The said Sekar Transport is represented by the first respondent as one of its partners. It the counter statement filed by the respondents, it is clearly stated that the first respondent is the Managing Director of the second respondent firm and his son is one of the other Directors. It is the contention of the respondents that there is no sub-letting as the first respondent himself is carrying on the transport business. In the chief examination he reiterated the case, but in the cross examination the first respondent deposed that he has no share whatever in the second respondent firm. He has also stated that he is not in any way related to any of the partners of the firm. The Rent Controller found on the basis of the evidence that there is a clear case of sub-letting without any permission by the petitioners and consequently the respondents are liable to be evicted. The appellate authority has taken a curious view that the partners of the second respondent firm have not been impleaded as parties to the petition and therefore the application for eviction is not maintainable. It has not given a finding on the question of sub-letting, though a reading of the order will show that the appellate authority is not disturbing the finding of the Rent Controller on that question.

(3.) AS regards bonafide requirement for own occupation, the appellate authority has again gone wrong in holding that the landlord will not be in a position to conduct the business in scrap iron in the petition premises. He placed reliance on Ex. X-1 which is a circular issued by the Director of Municipal Administration, Madras. The circular directed all the Executive Authorities of Municipalities and township Committee not to grant permission for automobile workshops and shops selling old and used spare parts of automobiles in residential areas and in bazar areas and that such industries and shops should be started only in industrial areas and with the prior permission of the local bodies. The Health Officer of the Pollachi Municipality has been examined as R.W. 3. He has admitted in the cross examination that in the street in which the petition-property is situated, there is a motor repairing workshop and that old scrap irons are being brought into the workshop. He admitted that no steps have been taken to stop or cancel the permission granted to such automobile workshop. He has also admitted that in the adjacent vicinity there are number of scrap iron shops. Where he is specifically asked as to whether the circular issued by the Director or Municipal Administration would apply to the petitioners, he expressed his ignorance and answered that he does not know. In the circumstances, the Rent Controller has taken the correct view that the bonafide of the requirement of the petition premises by the petitioners having been proved, it is not open to the respondents to rely upon the general circular issued by the Director of Municipal Administration. The appellate authority has committed an error in relying upon that circular and negativing the claims of the landlords. Hence the order of the appellate authority made in R.C.A. No. 4 of 1985 is set aside. The order of the Rent Controller made in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1982 is restored. The Civil Revision petition is allowed. No costs.