BHAGWAN CHAND AND CO Vs. UTTAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment of the leaned Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in R.C.A. No.1080 of 2003 dated 21.12.2005.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the respondents herein will be hereinafter called as -landlords- and the petitioner as -tenant-.

(3.) THE said Eviction Petition has been resisted by the tenant by putting forth the plea that in the ground floor number of tenants have vacated and the landlords have kept those premises under lock and key which could be used by them for their business purpose. Further the requirement of the landlords for the additional occupation has been disputed by the tenant in his counter. Further, it has been pleaded that the business which is carried on by the tenant in the Petition premises even since 1967, is the only source of income for the entire family of the tenant. THE tenant has earned goodwill and it would be impossible to re-establish business anywhere else. Thus, loss and hardship that would accrue on the tenant if he vacates can never be evened. On these back ground of the case the landlords have examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and filed as many as 19 documents. THE tenant has examined himself as RW.1 and another witness as RW.2 and marked as many as 22 documents to support his case. As said already, the Rent Controller has dismissed the Application for eviction and the landlord filed the Appeal before the Appellate Authority, who has allowed the same. THE tenant thereafter has filed the Revision before this Court. This Court while allowing the Revision filed by the tenant as held as follows: - 7. In this context, the comparative hardship is to be looked into as laid down in Badrinarayanan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada, 2003 (2) SCC 320. In this decision, while dealing formulation of comparative hardship it was observed that, -Factors to be considered include the direness of the need for eviction and of the need to stay in the need to stay in the premises, the conduct of the parties, their mutual relationship, prognosis as to how situation would develop in foreseeable future both in event of eviction being allowed and it is being disallowed.- This aspect may only improve the case of the revision petitioner/tenant and independent of which there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord requiring the building of 240 sq.ft., when his actual requirement was 1000 sq.ft. and especially, when landlord filed no Eviction Petition against any other tenant in order to satisfy the balance of 750 sq.ft.8. If only bona fide is found in favour of landlord , the question of comparative hardship will have to be considered inter se the parties but in a case, where bona fide itself looking on the part of the landlord, no question of comparative hardship need be looked into and even if it is looked into, it only goes in favour of the revision petitioner/tenant as he has no other building to run the stationery business inasmuch as the other building that was shown to be used by him was as shown as godown excepting that no building is available. Hence, I am of the view that the order passed by the Authority below has to be interfered with.-