RADHA H JOSHI Vs. PIONEER SURGICAL COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioners are the landlords. THE landlords, who were unsuccessful before the learned Rent Controller (XII Judge, small Causes Court), Madras in seeking an order of eviction of the respondents/tenants from the petition premises, in filing the Rent Control original Petition No. 816 of 1993, on the ground of own use and occupation by way of additional accommodation, under the order dated 1. 4. 1997 and as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Small Causes court), Madras in R. C. A. No. 503 of 1997 as per judgement dated 21. 2. 2002, have filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) HARIPRASAD Joshi, the husband of the 1st revision petitioner and father of the revision petitioners 2 and 3, filed the Rent control Original Petition seeking eviction of the respondents from the petition premises, namely, non-residential shop portion in the ground floor, bearing door No. 13 (Old No. 149), Nyniappa Naicken Street, Madras-600003, to an extent of 740 square feet (40 feet x 18-1/2 feet) let out to the 1st respondent, namely, M/s. Pioneer Surgical Company, a partnership firm, of which the respondents 2 and 3 are the partners, who are father and son. It is stated in the Rent Control Original Petition that the respondents are carrying on their business in the ground floor of the premises bearing old No. 149, New No. 13, nyniappa Naicken Street, Madras-600003 as tenants under the said HARIPRASAD joshi/landlord. The said HARIPRASAD Joshi was residing in the second floor of the premises No. 13, Nyniappa Naicken Street, Madras-3, and was carrying on business in Hardware, Iron and Steel having its office in the second floor of the said premises No. 13, and also in the premises bearing door No. 14, Veerappan street, Sowcarpet, Madras-600079, wherein the said HARIPRASAD Joshi was having his sales office and also a small godown in the ground floor, measuring about 180 square feet. The godown is not sufficient, since there has been increase in the business, and further, Veerappan Street Sowcarpet, Madras-79 is not a hardware market area, while the petition premises is very near to Kandasamy temple, which is well known for hardware market. The premises bearing door no. 14, Veerappan Street , sowcarpet, Madras-79, is a rented premises. The said HARIPRASAD Joshi had been carrying on the said hardware business under the name and style of Swathi industrial Corporation, in partnership with his sister's son Sridhar Bhat. Though the respondents/tenants promised to vacate the petition premises, they have failed to do so. In the petition premises there are other portions occupied by tenants, but those portions are very small and it is not possible to stock the hardware materials, like rods, etc. The petition premises occupied by the respondents/tenants is a big one, and most suitable for the landlord's hardware business, which consists of rods, angles, sheets, etc.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revision Petitioners/landlords submitted that the fact, that the Rent Control Original Petition was originally filed by the landlord Hariprasad Joshi (P. W. 1), who was carrying on the business with his nephew, P. W. 2, and the said business, on the death of Hariprasad joshi (P. W. 1), is being carried on by his son, P. W. 3 along with P. W. 2, is amply established by the partnership deed, Ex. P-1 dated 26. 3. 1990 and other documents, Exs. P-2 to P-156, more particularly, Ex. P-156, namely, the deed of partnership entered into between B. Sridhar Bhat (P. W. 2) and P. W. 1's son Satish h. Joshi (P. W. 3), in respect of M/s. Swathi Industrial Corporation. LEARNED counsel further submitted that it is established by P. Ws. 1 to 3 and from exs. P-1 to P-156 that the said partnership firm, M/s. Swathi Industrial corporation, being carried on at premises No. 14, Veerappan Street, Sowcarpet, chennai-79, is not sufficient to do the business of the revision petitioners, especially the godown therein is small to keep the iron rods, angles, sheets, etc. , and so the petition shop portion situated in the ground floor of the said premises, measuring 660 square feet is bona fide required as additional accommodation by the revision petitioners/landlords for the said business now carried on by the 2nd revision petitioner (P. W. 3), on the death of his father, p. W. 1, who filed the Rent Control Original Petition originally, and died after examining himself as P. W. 1. LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioners/landlords further submitted that it is not for the respondents/tenants to dictate the landlords as to which of the portion is suitable for their own use and occupation by way of additional accommodation.