VENCO JEWELLERS Vs. S SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the tenants, who lost the case before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.29 of 1993 filed against the dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition No.236 of 1989 filed for eviction by the landlord on the ground of own use and occupation.

(2.) The respondent/landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition against the tenants/revision petitioners seeking eviction from the petition non-residential premises bearing door Nos.554 and 555, Big Street, Coimbatore Town on the ground that both the premises required for own use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on business by the landlord's son Ananda Kumar. In the petition it is stated that the revision petitioners are proprietory concerns dealing in jewellery business. They occupied the petition non-residential premises bearing door No.555 in the year 1971 for their jewellery business and they requested the adjacent portion bearing door No.554 which fell vacant in the year 1977 to occupy and the landlord leased the same to the revision petitioners by removing the partition wall in between both the said shops and the revision petitioners have been carrying on business in both the premises bearing door Nos.554 and 555 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,090/- in total. The landlord was running Sree Shanmuga Vilas Cooking Vessels Shop in partnership. Since the landlord suffered heart attack twice, he retired from the said partnership business. The landlord's son Ananda Kumar, who was attained enough experience in the said business, wanted to start the vessel business of his own in the petition non-residential premises and in fact the landlord's son has started his own vessel business in a rented premises on a small scale already. Though the proprietor of the tenants informed that he purchased a property in Raja Street, Coimbatore in the name of his wife and had remodelled the same so as to shift the jewellery business now carried on by him in the petition premises, he did not vacate. To the lawyer notice dated 27.7.1989, a reply was sent by the revision petitioners.

(3.) In the counter the eviction sought is resisted by the revision petitioners admitting the tenancy and the quantum of rent in respect of both the petition non-residential premises. It is stated in the counter that in the third week of July 1989 when the tenants approached the landlord to comply the request already made to replace the shutters, the landlord wanted to increase the rent at Rs.1,000/- per month to each premises for which the tenants refused. It is further stated that since the petition premises were taken on lease at different time, the Rent Control Original Petition filed for eviction of both the premises is not maintainable. The requirement of the petition premises for own use and occupation for the landlord's son Ananda Kumar for running vessel business is without bona fide. The landlord, who is also owner of the adjacent premises bearing door No.553 leased out the same to one Ganesh Jewellery and the said Ganesh Jewellery vacated the said building and the landlord has leased the same to one Pari Jewellery which is a partnership firm consisting of Sri Arumugham, Sri Shanmuganathan and Sri Pari as partners and they have been carrying on business in jewellery from 1.2.1990.