INDIAN PLYWOOD MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs. BALARAMIAH CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition challenging an order of eviction made by the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras and confirmed in appeal by the VII Judge, Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The landlord is admittedly the owner of the three premises, one is house No.2/30 (New No.5) Nainiappa Maistry Street, Madras, the other is No.97-B, Woodharf, Wall Tax Road, Madras, of which the landlord is the owner of 'superstructure alone, and the third is the premises in question bearing door No. 169, Coral MerchantStreet, Madras-1.

(2.) The petition premises No.169, Coral Merchant Street, Madras, is occupied by the Tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1050.00. The landlord made a petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act, in which he put-forth the case that his wife and his sons are carrying on business in the name and style of Sri Kanaka Durga Iron Mart at No.38, Post Office Street, Madras and having a godown at No.97-B, Woodwharf Wall Tax Road, Madras, in rented premises and since he is not possessed of any place or any godown of their own for stocking their goods and materials of their business, and for carrying on their business, the landlord bona fide required the godown occupied by the tenant in the ground floor of the premises at No.169, Coral Merchant Street, Madras. The tenant contested this petition on the ground that it was mala fide made because he did not agree to pay the enhanced rent of Rs.2000.00 which was demanded by the landlord. The tenant denied that the landlord needed the premises. The landlord and his son both gave evidence before the Rent Controller, who allowed the petition and ordered eviction.

(3.) In appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellate Authority also took the view that since the sons and the wife of the landlord are not in occupation of a nonresidential building for carrying on their business, the requirement of clause (iii) of section 10 (3)(a) of the Act was satisfied. The Appellate Authority also negatived the contention that the claim was not bona fide. The appeal preferred by the tenant thus came to be dismissed.