B K SHANKAR Vs. L M RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, against whom the authorities below have passed an order for eviction from the premises in his occupation on an application filed in that behalf by the respondents herein under S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (18 of 1960) as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is the petitioner. The premises bearing door No. 140 V. M. Street, Royapettah, Madras 14, admittedly belonged to one K. V. Panchanadam, who died in January 1980 and his legal representatives are the respondents herein. The petitioner is a tenant in occupation of that premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 75, payable on or before the 1st of the, succeeding calendar month. According to the case of the respondents originally, the letting out of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner was for residential purposes, but that some time later, the petitioner used the premises both for residential and non-residential purposes, which user was also consented to and acquiesced in by the deceased K. V. Panchanadam. Stating that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner was being used exclusively for non-residential purposes, and claiming that the second and the third respondents herein required the said premises for the purpose of carrying on their own business under the name and style of Janatha Radio Corporation which was being run in a portion of their residential building as they were not in occupation of any other non-residential building of their own for the purpose of their business in the city of Madras, the respondents filed H.R.C. 31 of 1981 before the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, under S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, praying for an order of eviction against the petitioner.

(2.) In his counter, the petitioner pleaded that the application filed by the respondents under S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was not maintainable as it was stated in the application for eviction that the original letting out to the petitioner was for residential purposes. The petitioner put forth the plea that right from 1941 onwards, with the consent of the then owners and also subsequently with the consent of the deceased K. V. Panchanadam, the premises had been continuously used by the petitioner both for residential and non-residential purposes for over 40 years and that the respondents cannot evict the petitioner by relying upon S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The requirement of the premses for the purpose of carrying on the business of Janatha Radio Corporation was also disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner also characterised the claim of the respondents as lacking in bona fides. The loss and hardship that would be caused to the petitioner in the event of an order of eviction being passed against him was also pleaded as a ground for rejecting the application of the respondents. Claiming that he had put up some constructions, the petitioner contended that the provisions of the Act can be applied only with reference to the building of which he was a tenant and not those which had been put up by him.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller, on behalf of the respondents, Ex.P. 1 was marked and the third respondent was examined as P.W.1, while on behalf of the petitioner, he was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were filed. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner was of a non-residential character and, therefore, the application filed under S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was maintainable. Adverting to the admission of the petitioner that the respondents had been carrying on business under the name and style of Janatha Radio Corporation, the Rent Controller found that since the respondents did not own any other non-residential building, they would be entitled to ask for an order of eviction for carrying on such business in their own premises but in the occupation of the petitioner and that the requirement in that regard was also bona fide. On those conclusions, the application for eviction filed by the respondents herein was allowed and an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A. 1339 of 1982 before the Appellate Authority (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras. On a reappraisal of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Appellate Authority concurred with the conclusions of the Rent Controller and upholding the order of eviction, dismissed the appeal. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in this civil revision petition.