AMIRTHLAL DARIWAL Vs. T U C S LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlord before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority with regard to the eviction ordered by the learned Rent Controller from the petition non-residential premises on the ground of additional accommodation, acts of waste and on the ground of nuisance, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition in respect of a portion in the ground floor at No.73, West Jones Road, Saidapet, Madras 600 015, in which the respondent T.U.C.S. Ltd., is carrying on business for ration shop. The landlord is carrying on business in finance and pawn broking in the adjacent shop in the very same premises and in view of the fact, the business has developed to a great extent, the revision petitioner requires the petition premies for his additional accommodation for the purpose of the above said business. Further, the respondent/tenant is causing irreparable damage and wastage to the petition premises. The entire flooring was damaged, which was handed over in a very good condition. The respondent caused severe damage to the flooring and the walls. The respondent/tenant also caused great nuisance by allowing the public to squat on the passage land and the entrance of the Pawn Broker shop and the residence of the revision petitioner.

(3.) The Rent Control Original Petition was opposed in the counter admitting the tenancy and the quantum of rent stating that the petition premises consists of 3 shops and in one of the shops, the respondent is running a ration shop. Another shop is in the occupation of the revision petitioner, in which he has stored his materials. The revision petitioner can very well occupy the third shop for additional accommodation. The revision petitioner is running a Pawn Broker business in the name and style of "Sakunthala & Co." and jewellery shop in the name and style of "Lakshmi Jewellery" and also Financing Corporation in the name and style of "Dhariwal Finance Corporation" at No.16, Kodambakkam Road, Madras-33. The revision petitioner is having his residence on the back of the petition shop and he is not carrying on any business activities in the petition premises. As such, the requirement of the petition shop for own use and occupation to carry on Pawn Broker business by way of additional accommodation is without bona fide. It is denied that the respondent has committed acts of waste and damaged the flooring of the premises. It is also denied that nuisance is caused by allowing the public to squat on the passage land at the entrance of the residence of the revision petitioner. The respondent being a Government Institution involved in Public Distribution System, if the respondent is evicted from the petition premises, it will cause much hardship to the public.