A P SWAMY Vs. V KUNJILHAPADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner herein. THE landlord filed a petition for eviction under Secs. l0 (2) (l) and 10 (3) (a) (iii)of the Tamil Nadu buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') THE respondent herein is the owner of the premises bearing door No. 227, Avvai Shanmugham Road, Madras. THE petitioner herein is the tenant in occupation of the ground floor portion of the said premises including one car shed on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 which was increased to Rs. 2,260 per month under an order passed by the Rent controller in R. C. O. P. No. 4216 of 1984 dated 12. 9. 1988. According to the landlord the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent at the admitted rate of Rs. 1,000 per month from 1. 7. 1988 to the end of August, 1989. According to the landlord the tenant also committed wilful default inpayment of rent i. e. the difference between the agreed rent and the fair rent fixed by the Rent controller from November, 1984 onwards. It was therefore pleaded that the tenant committed wilful in payment of rent as contemplated under Scc. 10 (2) (1)of the Act and thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted. THE landlord is carrying on business in automobile spare parts under the name and style of eastern Agencies. THE said business is looked after by his son Kalyana Sundaram and he expanded the business by taking the dealership with Fenner Belts, Amco batteries and Mofa Mopeds. He also obtained loan from various banks for expanding his business. THE landlord is doing his business in a rented premises at No. l, General Patters Road , Madras . THE owner of the said shop issued a notice of eviction. THE owner of the premises at General Patters Road also filed a petition for eviction against the landlord herein in r. C. O. P. No. 287 of 1987. THE tenant herein has practically closed the business carried on by him in the petition premises and also negotiating for the sale of his business. He is having his own flat at Ashok Nagar and he can shift his business to his own premises. THErefore, the landlord required the petition premises for accommodating his business bona fide under Scc. l0 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act.

(2.) IN the counter, the tenant staled as under: The Rent controller determined the fair rent in R. C. O. P. No. 4216 of 1984. But as against that order an appeal was filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in r. C. A. No. l13 of 1989 and the same is pending. After the month of August, 1989 rent at the rate of Rs. i ,000 was paid to the landlord. The landlord has not issued the receipts for the payment of rent for the said period. Since the tenant was compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 by an order passed by the Rent controller under Sec. 11 (4) of the Act, the tenant paid the said sum. Since the tenant has paid the entire rent due to the landlord the petition filed under Sec. 10 (2) (1) of the Act is liable to be dismissed. It is not correct to state that the landlord was asked to be vacated from the premises in which he is carrying on his business. Earlier the landlord filed a petition for eviction in R. C. O. P. No. 3948 of 1982 under Sec. l0 (3) (c) of the Act and that petition was dismissed. The order passed in the said petition would operate as res judicata against the landlord. Therefore, there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under Sec. l0 (3) (a) (iii)of the Act.

(3.) I have heard the rival submissions.