R SRINIVASAN Vs. K S MUTHU MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased landlord B.Ramaswami Chettiar, who is the owner of the property in question. THE 1st respondent is the tenant represented by its partner K.S. Muthu Mudaliar. Respondents 2 and 3 were brought on record when the appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE landlord filed a petition for eviction against the 1st respondent/ tenant under Secs.l0(2)(l) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. THE eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also for additional accommodation for the business needs of the landlord's wife and son. THE 1st respondent is a tenant in respect of Door No.l9-B, D.P.C. Lane, Bazaar Street, Salem Town. Both the authorities below have rejected the petition filed by the landlord. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) IT is the specific case of the landlord that Door No.l9-B, which is under the occupation of the 1st respondent, is required for the business needs of his wife and son/ petitioners herein. The landlord sent a notice prior to the filing of the eviction petition. The tenant sent a reply denying the allegations, to which the landlord sent another reply notice specifically stating that he requires the premises in question as additional accommodation for his own purposes viz., for the business needs of his wife and son. To this notice, the tenant sent a rejoinder alleging for the first time that there is a rent advance of Rs.5,000 with the landlord and that the claim is not bona fide. In paragraph 10 of the eviction petition, a specific averment has been made in regard to the claim of the landlord for additional accommodation. IT is stated that the landlord's wife and son are partners of two businesses which are being carried on at No.388, Bazaar Street, Salem-1 and both the businesses are in respect of wholesale cloth under the name and style of BRS Trust and B.Ramaswami Chettiar & Sons. Under both the concerns, the landlord's wife and son are buying handloom cloth in large quantities from the local market and send it to out-station centers. In the course of their business, they require a large area for stocking their goods. Since the shop in which they are carrying on business is a small one, they are not able to store the entire stock. Besides, the said shop is a rented one and the owner of the shop is pressing the landlord's wife and son to vacate the shop and handover vacant possession. In the circumstances, the landlord was obliged to have possession of the petition premises for the premises for the purposes of the business of his wife and son.