KAIRUNNISSA BEGUM Vs. ABDUL RAZACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLADY is the petitioner herein. She filed a petition for eviction against the tenant under Sec. 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 tenant is in occupation of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 380. The petition premises is a non-residential one. According to, the landlady she requires the petition premises for the purpose of conducting the business by her third son, who failed in his B. Sc. examination. He wanted to start his business in the petition premises in selling electrical goods and electrical fittings, etc. The landlady has made all arrangements for starting the said business in the petition premises. The landlady is not having any other non-residential premises of her own in Vellore town. Therefore she required bona fide the petition premises for the business of her son under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. She issued a notice to the tenant and the tenant sent a reply. According to the tenant he is doing his business in the petition premises even prior to the purchase by the present landlady. The landlady is having several premises of her own in Vellore town and, therefore, according to the tenant, her requirement is not bona fide. The tenant stated that the landlady required a sum of Rs. 5,000 by way of pagadi. Since the tenant refused to pay the said sum, the landlady came forward with the present petition. The tenant submitted that the landlady's son is not doing any business and no arrangement was made for conducting business as alleged by the landlady. It was, therefore, submitted that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act.

(2.) MOHAMED Iqbal was examined as P. W. I and the tenant examined himself as R. W. I. The landlady filed two documents and the tenant filed thirteen documents. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller held that the landlady failed to establish her bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec. l0 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, and, accordingly, dismissed the petition for eviction. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate authority, confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. It is against that order, the landlady is in revision before this Court.

(3.) IN the case of Hameediya Hardware Stores v. Mohan Lal sowcar, (1988)2 L. W. 1 (S. C.), the Supreme Court held as under: 'if the requirement of claim being'bona fide'as contained in Sec. l0 (3) (e) is construed to mean that genuineness of the need of the landlord for the non-residential building is not to be considered and the circumstance that the landlord on the date of making the application is factually carrying on business and has no non-residential building of his own in his occupation in the city, town or village concerned is to be construed sufficient to make his claim bona fide, the tenancy of no non-residential building will be secured. It will be preposterous to attribute such an intention to the legislature. Such a contingency should be avoided as it would be against the very object of the Act itself. The need of the landlord should be genuine. That is that object of enacting clause (e) of Sec. 10 (3) of the Act. When once we reach the above ci/. . . !vcion it is not enough that the landlord should merely desire to use or occupy the premises. What is necessary is that he should bona fide need them for his own use and occupation or for occupation by any of the members of his family.'