V PERIAKATHA NADAR Vs. K SUBRAMANIAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order of concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authorities below, ordering Eviction under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act"). By Order dated 10.01.2003 in R.C.A.No.6 of 1998, the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Dindigul confirmed the Order of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Dindigul dated 22.06.1998 in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1997. The unsuccessful Tenant is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) THE Respondents/Landlords filed Eviction Petition against the Revision Petitioner / Tenant for evicting him from a Non-Residential Building. THE Tenanted Building is in Door No.239 and 240, situated in Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul. THE Demised Building belongs to the Respondents / Landlords, who are Husband and Wife. THE Revision Petitioner / Tenant has become the Tenant for Commercial purposes; in the Demised Building, he is running a Hardware and Paint Shop and the Tenancy is admitted. THE Rent payable by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is Rs.500/-. THE First Respondent / Landlord is running a Vessel Shop under the name and style of "Kumbakonam Vessel Shop" in Door No.9 of Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul. Door No.9 is a Rented building and is owned by one Vijayalakshmi. Hence, the First Respondent wants to shift his Business to Door Nos.239 and 240. In the Demised Building, the First Respondent is having Godown for his Vessels. Since the Respondents / Landlords are in occupation of a part of the Building, the Landlords have filed the Eviction Petition under two grounds viz., Own use and Occupation of Non-Residential Building and Additional Accommodation. THE Respondents / Landlords have filed the Petition for Eviction in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Dindigul seeking to evict the Revision Petitioner on two grounds viz.,: -

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the concurrent findings of the Authorities below, the Revision Petitioner / Tenant has preferred this Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Tenant assailed the Order of Eviction, contending that Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act cannot go together and that there cannot be any order of Eviction on both the grounds. Taking through the evidence, learned counsel has made elaborate submissions contending that the First Respondent / Landlord has got several Buildings in Dindigul. Pointing out that Door No.1, Chellandiamman Kovil Street has been let out to Tenant and Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street has been let out to Tenant for running "Udayam Silvers", learned counsel submitted that the requirement of the First Respondent / Landlord would not fall within the ambit of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act and that there is no bonafide requirement. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon number of decisions.