DHAVAMANI Vs. RADHKRISHNAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlord before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority who got an order of eviction before the learned Rent Controller on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent from May 1995 till the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition, that the petition premises has been used for a purpose other than for which it was leased and that the requirement of the petition premises for additional accommodation is bona fide.

(2.) The landlord filed Rent Control Original Petition under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") that the respondent is the tenant of the petition non-residential premises bearing door No.20, Ramamada Street, Kaspa Thiruthuraipoondi Town from the year 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.30/- and the rent was enhanced subsequently and the rent payable at the time of filing of the said petition is Rs.300/- per month in which the respondent was carrying on tea shop. In September, 1982, the respondent shifted his business and was running cycle company, vegetables, fruits and sarpath (rh;gj;) business and also bakery and lottery ticket business though the landlord did not give consent. The rent sent for the month of May, 1995 was refused and returned by the landlord, since he did not give his consent for the respondent to run the bakery in the petition shop. The respondent has been carrying on business in the name of "Rusi bakery". The respondent caused lawyer notice on 3.7.1995 to name the bank to which the revision petitioner did not reply. The respondent has not been paying the rent from May, 1995 onwards and as such committed default wilfully in payment of rent. The respondent also filed O.S.No.241 of 1995 in District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi for permanent injunction that his possession should not be disturbed. The interim injunction obtained in I.A.No.1136 of 1995 in that suit was vacated. The advocate-commissioner appointed in I.A.No.1137 of 1995, inspected the petition shop and filed report mentioning the business carried on by the respondent, as such, it is clear that the respondent used the petition premises for a purpose other than for which it was leased. The revision petitioner residing with his family consisting of his wife, five daughters and son and the entrance to the house was through the petition shop. The house, in which the revision petitioner is living with his family, is not sufficient and the petition shop, which is situated in the same building, is of asbestos cement sheet roof and the house, in which the revision petitioner residing, is R.C.C. terraced building. The western mother wall of the petition shop is the wall for the kitchen of the revision petitioner's house and if an entrance is constructed in the above wall, the revision petitioner can use the petition shop for residential purpose of his family. The respondent is owning a tea shop near bus stand, besides site for construction of shops near new bus stand. The respondent also owning 4 shops in the ground floor and four room on the upstairs portion of R.C.C. building within town limit in the road leading to Muthupet.

(3.) The petition was resisted by filing counter admitting the tenancy and the quantum of rent at Rs.300/- per month at the time of filing of the petition. It is also admitted that the respondent is the younger brother of the revision petitioner's mother and that he was assisting her sister in the business run by her and that he entered as a tenant in the year 1968 under his sister. Further, it is denied that the petition shop was originally residential portion of the house in which the revision petitioner is residing with his family. It is further stated that the respondent was carrying on business in the sale of tea and coffee for about 15 years and then shifted his business by carrying on business in the sale of fruits in one portion and petty shop in another portion which was not objected to by the revision petitioner, by obtaining licence. Thereafter, he was running cycle company and then in sale of fruits and vegetables and then in sale of lottery tickets which was not objected to by the revision petitioner. The rent sent by money order for the month of May, 1995 was refused and returned by the revision petitioner and so, the respondent caused lawyer notice on 3.7.1995 to name the bank to which the revision petitioner did not reply. The rent sent on 17.7.1995 by money order for the months of May and June, 1995, was also refused. Thereafter, the respondent filed petition in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1996 under Section 8(5) of the Act and he has filed lodgement schedule periodically to deposit the rent in the petition, since no order was passed, the rent could not be deposited. The respondent is carrying on bakery business in the petition shop. It is denied that the respondent is delaying though admitted to vacate the petition premises. The petition shop is of asbestos sheet roof building and the house of the revision petitioner is of R.C.C. terraced building and as such, they are different buildings and therefore, the revision petitioner cannot seek the petition shop for additional accommodation. The revision petitioner was carrying on tailoring shop in the name of "Jothees Tailor" and by making suitable alteration in the house by demolishing the entrance in Ramamada Street. The revision petitioner also extended the shop in which he was carrying on business in Thiruvarur Road by annexing the same with the portion of his house and let out the same to one "Padma Fancy Store" by obtaining heavy advance amount. Further, he has also put up four shops and the upstairs portion in Ramamada Street and let out to four persons. Hence, the requirement sought for on the ground of additional accommodation is not correct. The petition shop is situated near the bus stand and that in that area the respondent does not own any property. It is further stated that if he is evicted from the petition shop, much hardship would be caused to him, in that it would be difficult for him to collect the loan amount due.