GIRIRAJAN Vs. MOHANAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai made in RCA No.780 of 2005, whereby the order of the Rent Controller in RCOP No.1121 of 2004, seeking an order of eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, was reversed and eviction was ordered, this civil revision petition has been brought forth by the tenant before this court.

(2.) THE respondent/landlady filed the petition for eviction, stating that she is the owner of the premises bearing Old No.290, New No.497, Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai; that the respondent therein is the tenant in respect of two shop portions, namely Shop Nos.2 and 3 in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.5770/-; that it was originally leased out to the respondent's father; that the petitioner is running a lodge under the name and style of "Velmurugan Lodge" in the first and second floors; that in the ground floor, there are four shops and in one shop, she is running her office and the other shops, namely 2 and 3, are under the occupation of the tenant/respondent in the RCOP, while the other shop was actually let out to one Shafeequa Banu; that RCOP No.220 of 1998 was filed; that pursuant to the same, she vacated the premises and handed over the possession and thus, the landlady got possession of the property; that her son by name Balamurugan is under occupation of the said portion and that for her son's requirement, the petition mentioned premises is now sought for; that he has decided to start a supermarket business in the said building, for which purpose, he has also put in possession of the premises, which was in occupation of the other tenant, who has vacated and handed over the possession of the same; that he has got a valid license to run the supermarket business, he has also got training in the said business and he has got sufficient funds to commence the business and under these circumstances, he requires the other shop, which is in the occupation of the present tenant and the requirement of the petitioner is bona fide and genuine and under these circumstances, if not vacated, it would cause hardship to the petitioner and hence, the eviction was to be ordered.

(3.) IN support of the revision petition, the learned counsel would submit that the Rent Controller has gone into both factual and legal positions correctly and has dismissed the petition, but the appellate authority, without applying his mind, has passed an erroneous order; that in the instant case, what was asked for by the landlord was the eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act; that Section 10(3)(c) of the Act should be applied in a case, where actually the premises is required for additional accommodation and the landlady is carrying on business at that time, but in the instant case, even as per the admission made by P.W.1, the landlady's son, for whose need the portion is required, neither he is being carrying on business nor her mother in the property in question; that if the business is not carrying on in any portion of the property, no question of additional accommodation would arise; that in any given situation, where the property is needed for that use, such an application should have been filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and not under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act; that the appellate authority has not considered the legal position, but has found that the application should have been filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act; that so long as it is an admitted fact that either the landlady or her son, for whose possession it is required, are not carrying on business, it cannot be done.