SHELAT BROTHERS Vs. LODD NARENDRADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON ORDER: These civil revision petitions arise out of proceedings in eviction instituted by the respondents in C.R.P.Nos. 313 of 1984 and 314 of 1984 and the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No.1285 of 1984 under section 10(3)(a) (iii) and section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (as amended by Act XXIII of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in R.C.O.P.Nos. 2534 of 1981, 2533 of 1981 and 3202 of 1981 before the Rent Controller (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The subject-matter of R.C.O.P.No. 2533 of 1981 filed by the respondent in C.R.P.No. 314 of 1984 is the eastern half portion of the ground floor of premises bearing Door No.5, Luckmudoss Street, Madras-3. Similarly, the western portion of the same premises formed the subject-matter of R.C.O.P.No. 2534 of 1981 filed by the respondent in C.R.P.No.313 of 1984. Another portion in the ground floor of the western half of the premises bearing Door No.5, Luckmudoss Street, Madras-3 was the subject-matter of the application for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.3209 of 1981 filed by the respondent in C.R.P.No. 1285 of 1984. The respondent in C.R.P.No.314 of 1984 is a lawyer, while, the respondent in C.R.P.No.313 of 1984 who is also the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1285 of 1984 is an Engineer by profession. The case of the respondent in C.R.P.No.314 of 1984 in his application for eviction is that the eastern half of the premises bearing old Door No.8 and new Door No.5, Luckmudoss Street, Madras-3, fell to his share in a partition and that he is the landlord thereof, that the upstairs portion of that building is a residential premises in which, besides living, he has been carrying on his profession as an advocate in a small room, that in this portion, though intended for residence, he is running his office in a small portion being subjected to great inconvenience and that for the purpose of running his office, he bona fide requires the eastern half of the ground floor under the occupation of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.314 of 1984 (R.C.O.P.No.2533 of 1981), that he is not in possession of any other nonresidential premises and that even assuming that he was carrying on his profession as a lawyer in a small room, he would nevertheless be entitled to additional accommodation under section 10(3)(c) of the Act. The respondent in C.R.P.No. 313 of 1984 and the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1285 of 1984 stated that he is the owner and landlord of the western half of the house bearing old Door No.8 and new Door No.5, Luckmudoss Street, Madras-3, that he is a qualified Civil Engineer carrying on his profession as such for over 23 years not possessed of any other non-residential premises for being used as his office and to carry on his profession, that he has been living at No.17, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Madras-10, but running his office in a small portion in the upstairs of the premises, which is a residential one belonging to him, where his aged mother and other members of his family having been living, that he bona fide requires the ground floor portion of the premises under the tenancy occupation of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.313 of 1984 and the respondent in C.R.P.No. 1285 of 1984 for his own use and occupation for non-residential purpose under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, that even assuming that he is in occupation of a portion of the first floor for his profession i.e., non-residential purpose, he would be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under section 10(3)(c) of the Act.

(2.) THE petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.313 of 1984 and 314 of 1984 is a firm and it resisted these applications for eviction on the ground that the claim of the landlords is not bona fide as the landlord had no intention of occupying the ground floor premises, that on two prior occasions, portions were surrendered for the purpose of use and occupation by the landlords which were not so occupied but let out to other tenants and that therefore, the claim cannot be bona fide. It was the further plea of the tenant that the landlord in R.C.O.P.No.2534 of 1981 was not carrying on any business in the upstairs portion of the tenanted building as he was carrying on his profession only at No.17, Mandapam Street, Kilpauk, Madras-10 and his claim was also not bona fide. According to the tenant, the landlords were only interested in letting out the premises for higher rents and therefore, their requirement was not bona fide at all.

(3.) SINCE the premises concerned in all the applications for eviction was the ground floor of the building bearing Door No.5, Luckmudoss Street, Madras-3, the basis for seeking an order for eviction against the tenants in occupation was also the same, namely the applications for eviction viz., R.C.O.P.Nos.2533 of 1981, 2534 of 1981 and 3201 of 1981 were heard together and the evidence recorded in R.C.O.P.No. 2533 of 1981 was treated as evidence in R.C.O.P.Nos. 2534 of 1981 and 3209 of 1981. 5. Before the Rent Controller (V11I Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, on behalf of the respondent in C.R.P.Nos. 314 of 1984 and 313 of 1984 and the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1285 of 1984, Exs. P-1 to P-33 were marked and the respondents in C.R.P.Nos.314 of 1984 and 313 of 1984 were examined as P.W.I and P.W.2, while, on behalf of the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.314 of 1984 and 313 of 1984, Exs. R-1 and R-2 were marked and one of its partners was examined as R.W.2 and the respondent in C.R.P.No. 1285 of 1984 gave evidence as R.W.I and another witness was also examined as R.W.3. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, found that the respondents in C.R.P.Nos.314 of 1984 and 313 of 1984 were already in occupation of a portion of the same building for non-residential purposes and cannot therefore require another portion in the same building under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, and that their requirement as and by way of additional accommodation was quite in order and bona fide as well. Proceeding to consider the relative hardship, the learned Rent Controller was of the view that the tenant had not established the non-availability of similar accommodation in that locality and therefore, its plea that other suitable accommodation is unavailable and the request for an order of eviction should be thrown out should not be countenanced. Regarding the portion in the occupation of the respondent in C.R.P.No. 1285 of 1984, the learned Rent Controller found that the portion in the occupation of the tenant in that case was only a pial and the requirement of such a pial for the purpose of enabling a Civil Engineer to have his consultation and practice was not reasonable or justifiable. The hardship that would result to the tenant by the granting of an order for eviction was found to outweigh the advantage to the landlord and it was therefore held that the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1285 of 1984 was not entitled to have the pial portion as and by way of additional accommodation. On those conclusions, R.C.O.P.Nos.2533 of 1984 and 2534 of 1981 were allowed and eviction of the petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.314 of 1984 and 313 of 1984 was ordered. However, R.C. O.P.No. 3209 of 1981, in view of the conclusions arrived at therein, was dismissed.