A S MANI Vs. UDIPI HARI NIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three tenants are the petitioners herein. THE landlord is a partnership concern. THE landlord filed petition for eviction against each of the tenants under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. THE petition premises is situated at No.111, Wall Tax Road, Park Town, Madras 600003. According to the landlord, in the upstairs portion on the front side, the tenants are in occupation. On the rear side of the building, the landlord is carrying on business by running a coffee hotel. In the first floor, the landlord is also conducting a lodging house. Both the businesses are increasing periodically. For the purpose of expanding the business run by the landlord, the portion in the occupation of the tenants are required by way of additional accommodation. Since there is insufficiency of space, the landlord is compelled to reduce his customers. Considering the nature of the business run by the landlord, the front portion would be of much advantage. Since the tenants are in occupation of the front portion of the building, it is of great disadvantage to the landlord. THEre was only one way leading to the lodging house being conducted in the first floor. In fact, the customers used to come inside the building and go through the stairs to the first floor. Since the customers are going through a narrow lane to reach the upstairs, the front portion would be of much advantage. It is also difficult for the customers to take their belongings and luggages to the lodging portion. Since the entrance is narrow and since there is no sufficient light, it is not possible to expand the entrance. Hence, the landlord requires the petition premises under the occupation of the tenants bona fide by way of additional accommodation. THE tenants can be shifted to various places and that would not affect them. THE advantage the landlord may get would out-weigh the disadvantage the tenants may incur if eviction is ordered. THE landlord is not carrying on any other business except the hotel business which is conducted in the petition premises. THE landlord is entirely depending upon the said business for his family life. If the petition premises is not used by way of additional accommodation, the business of the landlord would get affected. Notices were issued to the tenants in the year 1980 and 1983 calling upon them to vacate the petition premises, but they refused to do so. Earlier petitions filed for eviction against the tenants were dismissed but on technical grounds. THErefore, the order passed in the earlier petitions would not operate as res judicata. THE tenants assured that they would vacate the premises on 1.7.1984. But, they did not do so. In the earlier proceedings, some of the tenants vacated the petition premises. But, the respondents herein have refused to vacate the petition premises and hence the petitions.

(2.) THE common defence put forward by the tenants in their common counters are as under. THE earlier dismissal of the petitions filed by the landlord would operate as res judicata in filing the present petition for eviction. It is not correct to state that the petitioners herein along with other tenants agreed to give vacant possession on 1.7.1984 as alleged by the landlord. Only the legal heirs of one tenant vacated the petition premises. THEy have vacated the premises as they have not complied with the orders passed in a petition filed under Sec. 11(4) of the Act. THE portion in occupation of the tenants would not be sufficient for the landlord to expand his business. THE landlord is conducting his hotel and lodging business for the past more than 16 years. But, there is no progress in the business. THE insufficiency of the space is not the reason. THE space is sufficient for the landlord to serve the needs of his customers. THEre are several other coffee hotels in that area. THE business of the landlord has no chance to expand. In the notice sent in the year 1980, the landlord has not stated that they require the portions in the occupation of the tenants by way of additional accommodation. Only in the year 1983, the landlord sent a notice stating that he requires the portions in their possession for his additional accommodation. THE landlord is trying to vacate the tenants with a view to let out the premises for higher rents and for higher advance. It is not necessary for the landlord to conduct business in the ground floor, portion of the premises. THE staircase leading to the first floor is with a width of 6 feet and not of 4 feet. THE staircase can be used conveniently by the people who are coming to the hotel as well as to the lodging house. THE hotel is not in the rear portion as alleged by the landlord. THE landlord is also earning income from other ways. THEre is no other alternative place to the tenants if eviction is ordered. That would cause hardship to the tenants. In the petition premises, the tenants are carrying on the business for the past many years. THE landlord requires higher rent and higher advance amount to which the tenants are not agreeable. THE allegations made in the present eviction petition are contrary to the allegations contained in the earlier petitions.

(3.) ON appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under Sec. 10(3)(c) against each of the tenants. It is against these orders, the present revisions are filed by the tenants.