M ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. S SADASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the landlord against the order of the Appellate Authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) affirming the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing his eviction petition filed against the respondent tenant.

(2.) THE landlord/petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under section 10 (2) (i) of the Act for wilful default in payment of rent and under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act based on his requirement of the building for his use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on his own business. THE tenant-respondent resisted the said eviction petition on the ground that he has not committed wilful default in payment of arrears rent and that the claim of the landlord that the building is required for his own use and occupation for non-residential purposes was not bona fide. Tho Rent Controller, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by both parties, held that the tenant had not committed wilful default in payment of the monthly rents and that the claim of the landlord that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation for purposes of carrying on his own business is not bona fide. In that view, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal, the Appellate Authority has agreed with the view of the Rent Controller confirmed his order dismissing the eviction petition.

(3.) SO far as the finding rendered by the authorities below that the requirement of the premises by the landlord was not bona fide is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord contends that though that finding is a concurrent one, it could be interfered with by this Court as that finding has been rendered without reference to the relevant statutory provisions applicable to the case. According to the learned counsel for the landlord, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have proceeded to adopt the test applicable to a case to determine the bona fide or otherwise of the landlord in requiring the premises for his own occupation as a case falling under section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act ignoring the fact that section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act is differently worded from section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act. The learned counsel seeks support for his submission that the authorities below have not applied the correct statutory provision from the decision of Mohan, J., in M/s. Mahalakshmi Metal Industries v. K. Suseela devi1.