MAGANBAI GALADA Vs. MOOL CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are landlords whose claim for additional accommodation of premises in the occupation of the respondent was decreed by the Rent Controller, but that order has been set aside by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners are mother and her four sons who came to Court with a case that they had expanded their business and wanted to start a retail business in electrical goods. They are carrying on their business in the name and style of Ram Electrical Company. The tenant denied the bona fides of the need of the landlords.

(2.) On the evidence the Rent Controller found that the total turnover of the business has increased from Rs.4,65,243.59 in 1977-78 to Rs.12,04,683 in 1979-80. The Rent Controller also disbelieved the story put out for the first time in the evidence that the petition for eviction was made because the tenants did not agree to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 as pagadi. The Rent Controller took the view that even though a notice was given before the proceedings by the landlords, no reply was sent and if the landlords had really demanded Rs.10,000 as pagadi the reaction of the tenant would have been to say that the claim for eviction is being made because the tenant was not agreeable to pay the pagadi. Holding that the tenant himself had a premises at Perumal Maistry Street, the Rent Controller found that there could not be any hardship caused to the tenant by ah order of eviction.

(3.) The tenant filed an appeal against the order of eviction. The Appellate Authority however took the view that the contention that a retail business was to be started for settling the 5th petitioner was not substantiated because they had already averred that the peti-doners 2 and 5 were carrying on. business in electrical goods. The Appellate Authority also took the view that there was a portion in the form of hall which the Landlords could utilise for their expanded business. The Appellate Authority rejected the evidence of the landlords that the Will was being utilised for financial business. The learned Judge also relied on a decision of this Court in Janab. Abdhul Kadhar v. Husain Ali & Sons, (1962)2 M.L.J. 446: 75 L.W. 594, in which this Court took the view that a wholesale and a retail business are not the same, though the retail business may be carried in the same articles in which the wholesale business was being carried on. Therefore, the Appellate Authority took the view that the landlords - claim that they wanted the premises by way of an additional accommodation was not bona fide. Accordingly, the set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction.