N RENGAIYAN Vs. A M NOORULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 28. 3. 1988 in R. C. O. P. No. 23 of 1984 confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, Thanjavur District in r. C. A. No. 16 of 1989 dated 22. 11. 1990.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed the petition for eviction under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act 18 of 1960. THE case of the landlord is that he requires the building for the business of his son. THE building in question is situated in mayiladuthurai town, Pattamangala Street, Mayiladuthurai and is occupied by the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 400. THE son of the respondent herein is a partner in M/s. N. A. Ali Traders, carrying on iron and steel busin ess. THE building is required for the business of his son. THE respondent's son is not owning any building of his own at Mayiladuthurai. Notice was sent on 14. 11. 1983 and a reply containing.

(3.) SECTION 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 is as follows:- ' In case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for purpose 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.' A reading of the said section shows that if the petitioner or his son is not occupying for the purpose of the business a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned, a petition can be maintained for vacating a tenant from a non- residential building which is owned by the landlord. There is no restriction that the building required also must be situate in the same city, town or village. But the restriction is that the petitioner or his son should not be occupying the non-residential building for the purpose of the business which is his own. Hence the first contention is unsustainable.