P THANNEERMALAI CHETTIAR Vs. S J DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord is the Petitioner. He has filed the petition for eviction of the respondent under section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that he required the premises for his own occupation. The petition mentioned premises is a residential one and the rate of rent is Rs.100 per mensem. According to the petitioner, he wants to leave Devakottai and settle down at Villupuram and hence he barely needs the premises for his own occupation. He issued a notice on 12.9.1980 to the respondent calling upon him to vacate the premises to which the respondent sent a reply with false allegations. The said petition was resisted by the respondent. He filed a counter inter alia contending that the petitioner is an young man aged about 23 years and that all his vested interest and properties are only at Devakottai. Besides that, his father is also a business man and the entire family is doing business in money lending at Devakottai and they have got vast estate in the name of Sivakami Achi. His requirement of the house on the ground that he wanted to settle down at Villu-puram is most unjustifiable and unacceptable. Further, they have already sold the other house at Villupuram belonging to other members of Sivakami Achi Estate for a fabulous price. The petitioner offered to sell the premises to the respondent, that it did not fructify due to the intervention of some brokers and that only with a view to evict the respondent and sell the house to a third party for higher amount, this petition has been filed. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respective parties held that the requirement of the petition-mentioned building by the petitioner is not bona fide and consequently dismissed the petition. The petitioner was unsuccessful before the Appellate Authority and hence this revision.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.Srinivasan, mainly submitted that the question of �bona fide� is alien so far as the requirement of the petition-mentioned premises, for own occupation by the petitioner, that both the authorities below have not properly appreciated the principles of law enunciated by this Court to the facts of the instant case and that it has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

(3.) To appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, certain admitted facts have to be mentioned. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he has got enormous properties besides cash of Rs.20,00,000 and an estate at Malaysia. In the petition and the notice, he has simply stated that he wants to leave Devakottai and settle down at Villupuram and he required the premises for his residence. In the evidence it has been elicited even in chief examination that he requires the premises for establishing money-lending shop at the petition mentioned premises. In cross-examination he specifically stated that he intended to start a business in the petition mentioned-premises. It has to be noted that admittedly the petition-mentioned premises was let out for residential purpose and it is not open to the petitioner to ask for the premises for different use and purpose. Further, there is no whisper in the petition and in the notice sent by him that he required the premises for carrying on business in money lending. Both the authorities below have observed that the petitioner himself has admitted that he has not obtained any licence for starting money lending business at Villupuram. Further, it is highly improbable that a person like the petitioner, who owns vast extent of properties at Devakottai and was carrying on business, would leave Devakottai and settle down at Villupuram which is far off, when admittedly he has no other interest or property at Villupuram. It is not his case that he has already occupied a rented premises at Villupuram or that his business is extended to this place. The authorities relied on other circumstances also in arriving at the finding against the petitioner. The petitioner is unable to give any particulars about the petition-mentioned premises, particularly regarding the measurement of the house and other physical features of the petition-mentioned premises. He has also pleaded ignorance of the terms of the tenancy under which the respondent has been occupying the premises. It is the case of the respondent that he has effected improvements in the building by spending a sum of Rs.25,000 with the permission of the petitioner�s mother. In the rejoinder, it is only stated that the improvements effected by the respondent would not exceed Rs.2,000. But, in the evidence the petitioner is unable to deny the fact of improvements effected by the respondent.