VISALAKSHI NADAR Vs. S K SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the petitioners herein. THEy are in occupation of two shops belonging to the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 160 for each shop. THE respondent herein is a tenant in a rented premises under one Muthu at No. 22, Deenadayalan Street, T. Nagar , Madras. THE respondent is doing his business in the said rented premises. He is not having any other non-residential premises of his own in the City of Madras. Hence he required the shops under the occupation of the tenants for his own use and occupation. THE respondent herein sent a notice dated 6. 6. 1987 to the petitioners herein calling upon them to quit and deliver vacant possession. In spite of the said notice, they have not handed over possession. Hence according to the respondent herein he established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act.

(2.) IN the counter the tenants stated as under : It is not correct to state that the landlord required the petition premises for his own use and occupation. There is no evidence on record to show that the requirement of the landlord of the petition premises is bona fide. The landlord is in the habit of increasing the rent periodically. The rent which was at Rs. 95 in the beginning was later on raised to Rs. 160 per month. This would go to show that the landlord was increasing the rent periodically. Before filing this petition for eviction two of the shops fell vacant but the landlord did not occupy the same. The landlord filed this petition with an object of getting more rent. The tenans are in occupation of the petition premises from the year 1976 and they have expanded their business by establishing their goodwill. Since there are two shops with two separate rental agreements, one petition filed by the landlord against both the tenants is not maintainable. It was, therefore, pleaded that the landlord failed to establish his bona fide under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act.

(3.) THUS on facts the landlord established that he is carrying on his business in repairing the motor vehicles and he is doing such business in a rented premises. He is not having any other non-residential premises of his own in the City of Madras . Apart from these two factors the landlord has also established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec. 10 (3) (e) of the Act. The ingredients for obtaining possession under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act are stated in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hamedia Hardware v. Mohanlal Sowcar , A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 1060: (1988)1 J. T. 664. Both the authorities below concurrently came to the conclusion that on facts the landlord established that he deserves to be put in possession of the petition premises. In view of the foregoing reasons, the order of eviction passed by the authorities below under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii)of the Act is in order. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same.