V NATARAJAN Vs. P MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: Petition under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent) Control Act 1960 as amended by Acts 23/75 and 1/80 praying the High Court to revise the order of the Court of Small Causes,) VII Judge Madras dated 5.7.91 and made in R.C.A. No. 310 of 1989, R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 dated 7.2.89 on the file of the Court of Small Causes (XIV Judge) Madras. C.M.P. 9516/96: Petition presented to take note of the subsequent event by admitting the sale deed dated 26.3.90 as additional document marked as Ex. A on the petitioners side (Respondent in C.R.P. No. 477/93)) 1. The landlords are the petitioners herein. The landlords/Petitioners filed R.C.O.P. No. 2032 of 1986 under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 against the tenant. The petitioners in the eviction petition are husband and wife. They became the owners of the premises at No. 48, Devarajulu Mudali Street, Madras under a sale deed executed by C.K. Rathinasubapathy, C.K. Palanidoss and C.K. Srinivasamoorthy. The tenant is occupying the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/. He was carrying on business in selling beetel nut in the petition premises. After the purchase of petition premises by the petitioners herein, the tenant attorned the tenancy in their favour.

(2.) THE 1st petitioner is running a tea Stall at No. 219, Mint Street, Madras 3. THE petitioners purchased the petition premises for the purpose of accommodating the 1st petitioner's business in the petition premises. He is running his tea stall in a rented premises. He could not improve his business because of the strict conditions imposed by his landlord. His landlord raises objection for running the tea stall at midnight. He is also demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 500/ per month. THE 1st petitioner is facing threat of eviction from the landlord. He is having no other building of his own to carry on his business. THE petition premises is suitable for the running of the 1st petitioners business. THE 2nd petitioner has no objection for running the tea stall of the 1st petitioner in the petition premises. THE petitioners state that the respondent is carrying on similar business at Devarajulu Mudali Street, Govindappa Naicken Street and Kasi Chetty Street. THE petitioners sent a legal notice calling upon the tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premise. But there was no reply from the tenant. It was, therefore, pleaded that the 1st petitioner requires the petition premises for accommodating his own business.

(3.) THE 1st petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1. THE respondent examined himself as R.W. 1. THE petitioner filed 12 documents. THE respondent did not file any document. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller held that the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. However, on appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, considering the facts arising in this case set aside the order of eviction and dismissed the eviction petition since according to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlords failed to establish their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. As against this order, the landlords are in Revision before this Court.