H VASANTHAKUMAR Vs. S SUBASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant before both the authorities below is the revision petitioner herein. THE respondent/landlord filed RCOP No.51 7/1999 under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') for an order of eviction directing the revision petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession to the respondent herein of the shop portion in premises bearing Door No.20, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai.24.

(2.) THE respondent/landlord stated in the RCOP that the shop on the eastern side adjacent to the shop occupied by the revision petitioner is in the landlord's possession where he was originally having his medical shop. In November 1997, the son of the respondent started a departmental stores in a portion of the medical shop and as such both the business, namely, the medical shop and the departmental stores are carried on in the same portion. In due course of time, the departmental stores business developed considerably and more stock of different varieties were to be kept in the shop and due to lack of space, the goods are stored on the floor resulting in hampering the movement of the sales people as well as the customers. As the shop in the occupation of the revision petitioner and the respondent are being separated only by a wall, the respondent/landlord could add the same to his shop by removing the wall. THErefore, the landlord filed the RCOP for eviction as he bonafidely required the shop in the occupation of the tenant for additional accommodation.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the proviso with regard to relative hardship was very well followed by the Rent Controller and only after considering the same, eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller which was upheld by the Rent Control Appellate Authority also. The learned Senior counsel submitted that when both the authorities have concurrently rendered a finding against the revision petitioner, that too, after following the mandatory provisions, the same need not be interfered with by this court under Sec.25 of the Act.