J VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. GIRIDHARA GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Judge, dindigul dated 08. 11. 2002 in R. C. A. No. 20 of 1999 reversing the fair and decretal order of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Dindigul dated 01. 10. 1999 in R. C. O. P. No. 25 of 1997. The Petition filed by the Revision petitioner / Landlady under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "rent Control act") for additional accommodation was dismissed by the Rent Control appellate Authority. The Revision Petitioner is the Landlady.

(2.) THE Tenanted Building is Door No. 5 in Big Bazar Street (bghpa fil tpjp) Dindigul Town. Case of the Revision Petitioner / Landlady is that the Petition Property and Door No. 6 (situated on the South and Eastern side of Door No. 5) belonged to one Umadevi. THE Revision Petitioner / Landlady has purchased the Petition mentioned property from the said Umadevi and others by Sale Deed dated 29. 09. 1995 for Rs. 4,85,000/ -. THE Respondent / Tenant is a tenant in Door No. 5. He is running Stationery Stores. In Door No. 6, the revision Petitioner / Landlady is in occupation of the same as Owner. She and her family members are doing the business in Perfumes and Raw-materials for bakery, Sauce and others. Without any reason, the Respondent / Tenant has filed r. C. O. P. No. 54 of 1995 and deposited the rent for Door No. 5 into the Court. THE space in Door No. 6 is not sufficient for carrying on the business by the landlady. THE Door No. 6 is about 4 ½ Feet breadth - North South, which is used as the Pathway. THE portion in Door No. 6 is highly congested. THE perfumes and other business goods are to be dumped in Door No. 6. THE available space in Door no. 6 is absolutely insufficient to carry on the business of the Landlady. More space would be required by the Petitioner / Landlady. Hence, the Petition was filed under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Rent Control Act for additional accommodation.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments of the Revision petitioner/landlady, learned counsel for the Respondent/tenant has supported the findings of the Appellate Authority. It is submitted that the main intention of the Revision Petitioner/landlady is only to collect more rent. Drawing the attention of the Court to Exs. C. 1 and C. 2, it is submitted that mere dumping of Articles cannot lead to the conclusion of bonafide requirement. It is further submitted that the conduct of the Revision Petitioner / Landlady in filing R. C. O. P. No. 26 of 1999 for fixation of fair rent was rightly taken note of by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Pointing out the Eight shops owned by Revision Petitioner/ Landlady in Nanniammal Pettai and yet another shop in Big Bazar Street within a distance of 200 feet from the Tenanted building, it is submitted that when sufficient alternative accommodation is available to the Landlady, the comparative hardship caused to the Tenant is more and that there cannot be order of eviction and there is no reason warranting interference in the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Respondent/tenant has relied upon number of decisions.