A KHAN MOHAMMED Vs. P NARAYANAN NAMBIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner in both the petitions. He filed a petition for eviction of the respondents under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the premises which is a non-residential building is needed for the purpose of carrying on his own business. THE property is bearing door No. 79, Thulasinga Naicken St , Pudupet, Madras

(2.) IT is stated that there are about six shops each measuring 10 ft. x 6 ft. The four respondents in C. R. P. No. 616 of 1983 and the sole respondent in C. R. P. No. 617 of 1983 are in occupation of shops Nos. A, B, C, D, E, F, respectively, and it is stated in the petition that shop No. B is in the occupation of the petitioner's vendor. The property itself was purchased by the landlord on 3rd November, 1980 and immediately thereafter the petition was filed for eviction. 2. Two interesting questions have been raised in these petitions. The first question was whether the landlord has to prove his bona fide requirement in order to establish his right to have an order of eviction in his favour under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner apart from questioning the finding of the appellate authority on the question of bona fides, has also contended that in a case falling under sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii), the landlord need not prove strict bona fides and very little evidence relating to his entitlement for an order of eviction is needed. Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) and Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) may now be usefully quoted. Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) reads as follows:-- Sec. 10 (3) (a) (i) "a landlord may, subject to the provisions of Cl. (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building-- (i) in case it is a residential building, if the landlord requires it for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned. " Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) reads follows: Sec. 10 (3) (a): "a landlord may, subject to the provisions of C1. (d) apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building-- (iii) In case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own. " The learned counsel for the petitioner laid strong emphasis on the absence of the words'landlord requires'in Cl. (iii) and submitted that it clearly shows that the landlord need not show any bona fides; for getting an order of eviction under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii ). There is great force in this argument of the learned counsel. The word'requires'in Cl. (i) brings in the element of bona fides.'requires'there means that the landlord really required and in other words, bona fide requires. Whereas for the purpose of getting an order under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) the landlord has to prove only that he is not owning a building of his own for the purpose of carrying on his business. If he establishes that he is carrying on business in a rented building, then he is entitled to an order of eviction under Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii ).

(3.) I may also state that though on the question of bona fide requirement the lower appellate Court has given a finding that the landlord has not proved his bona fide requirement, I am of the view that finding is perverse. Actually, even on the question of bona fide requirement there is absolutely no evidence contrary to what the petitioner has stated in his evidence. The learned appellate authority seems to have simply proceeded on some assumptions and presumptions and had drawn inferences which are wild guesses. He had stated first that the petitioner is carrying on business in harris Road, Pudupet, which is a popular place and that no one would like to shift the business from, that road to any other place. This is a case where the landlord wanted to shift from that place and come to his own place for business. When a landlord requires his own property for the purpose of carrying on his business, especially when he is carrying on such business in a rented premises, such a requirement cannot be considered as not bona fide merely on the ground that the other place is better for carrying on the business than the present one which he seeks. It is for the landlord to decide which place is beneficial for him to carry on his business. It is also not correct to state factually that Harris Road is more popular than Thulasinga Naciken Street. Thulasinga Naicken Street runs perpendicular to Harris Road and there is evidence to show that the landlord's property is only about 100 yards from the place where he is now carrying on business in Harris Road.