S. PRABHULINGAM Vs. N. DILLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who lost both trial court as well as appellate court is before this Court challenging the order of eviction passed on the ground of Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for additional accommodation.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: The respondent who is the owner of the premises at Old Door No.6, New Door No.9, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, Chennai -600 011 let out the shop portion to the petitioner on a monthly rent at present at the rate of Rs.2,300/ -. The tenant paid an advance of Rs.25,000/ -. Alleging that the petitioner committed wilful default from 2002 to May 2007, the respondent issued notice on 18.5.2007. After receipt of reply notice dated 30.5.2007 from the petitioner, the respondent approached the Rent Controller and filed a petition under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(c), namely, for wilful default and additional accommodation. After enquiry, the Rent Controller came to a conclusion that there was no wilful default on the part of the petitioner herein and rejected the said ground, however, the court ordered eviction on the ground of additional accommodation finding that the adjacent shop is occupied by the respondent herein and is doing business in the name of Iswarya Xerox Centre and the respondent requires the portion occupied by the petitioner for his own occupation. While ordering eviction on that ground, the learned Rent Controller took into consideration the owning of two properties by the petitioner herein in the same road viz. Nos.267 and 268, Papers Mill Road and No.271/2 Paper Mills Road, Chennai -11. The same properties are obtained by the petitioner through Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 Sale Deeds which are all admitted by the petitioner himself in oral evidence. When the petitioner/tenant is owning two other properties in the same road and the respondent landlord already occupied a shop adjacent to the petitioner premises and doing business in the name of Iswarya Xerox Centre, necessarily the adjacent portion alone is required for his expansion of business. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that other three shops are also vacant, it is always the prerogative of the landlord to choose the premises and ordered eviction.

(3.) MR .Kumaresan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would further rely on a decision of this Court in M/s.Bhagwan Chand and Co., rep. by its Proprietor Mr.B.Chandanmull, Door No.47, Narayana Mudali Street, Chennai -600 079 vs. Utham Chand and others reported in 2006(1) TLNJ (Civil) 537 wherein it has been stated that the requirement of additional accommodation of 1000 sq.ft. by the landlord is not bona fide when the tenant has occupied only 240 Sq.ft. This Court is afraid that the said judgment does not lay down the correct law because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deep Chandra Juneja vs. Lajwanti Kazhuria (Smt)(Dead) through Legal Representatives reported in 2008 (8) SCC 497 and in Prativa Devi vs. T.V.Krishnan reported in 1996 (5) SCC 353 declared that the landlord is the last judge of his requirement. That apart, it is admitted by the petitioner in his oral evidence that the portion occupied by him is adjacent to the landlord's shop. When that is the case, the landlord can only ask for adjacent portion that too in the ground floor. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court cannot be interfered with.