AKILANDAMMAL AND OTHERS Vs. S.C. SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the landlord Vadivelu Mudaliar who died on 8th August, 1971 are the petitioners herein. Vadivelu Mudaliar filed a petition under S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in January, 1971 for evicting the respondent, S. C. Shah, from four rooms and two halls in the first -floor and four rooms and two halls in the ground -floor of premises No. 9, Bunder Street, George Town, Madras, on the ground that he was carrying on business as printers under the name and style of C.V.R. Press at No. 55, Bunder Street, George Town, Madras occupied as a tenant and that he required the premises in question bona fide for his own business purpose. He had alleged in the eviction petition that he does not own any non -residential building in the city, that the landlord of premises No 55, Bunder Street, was giving him trouble and had asked him to vacate and that the portion in his occupation at No. 55, bunder Street was not sufficient or convenient for his present need and his expanding business. Vadivelu Mudaliar was only a Chief tenant of premises No. 9, Bunder Street and it was not disputed that he was occupying No. 55. Bunder Street only as a tenant. The respondent was sued in the eviction petition in his individual capacity as S. C. Shah. The petition for eviction was opposed by the respondent who contended that he is not a tenant of Vadivelu Mudaliar in his individual capacity, that the firm of Messrs S.C. Shah, carrying on business in partnership is the tenant and the petition filed against the respondent in his individual capacity is not maintainable. The respondent further contended that Vadivelu Mudaliar, the Chief tenant of the building, occupying another building as a tenant is not entitled to evict him under the provisions of S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The respondent denied the allegation made in the eviction petition that the portion occupied by Vadivelu Mudaliar in No. 55, Bunder Street was not sufficient or convenient for his present needs and expanding business and that his landlord was giving him trouble. The respondent contended that Vadivelu Mudaliar's request was not bona fide and that he had been letting out portions of premises No. 55, Bunder Street at enhanced rent every time when vacancy arose, that the original rent of Rs. 125/ - per mensem for the portion occupied by the respondent in premises No. 9, Bunder Street, had been raised from time to time to the present rent of Rs. 200/ - per mensem and that the aim of Vadivelu Mudaliar was only to get enhanced rent of Rs. 300/ - per mensem. The respondent thus contended that the requirement of Vadivelu Mudaliar was not bona fide.

(2.) As already stated, Vadivelu Mudaliar died on 8th August, 1971. The petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 377 of 1972 for being brought on record as the legal representatives of Vadivelu Mudaliar on 28th August, 1971 and they were added as his legal representatives in that application by an order, dated 21st November, 1973. In that petition it was alleged by the petitioners that C.V.R. Press business for which the petition for eviction, was filed by Vadivelu Mudaliar against the respondent is a joint family business of Vadivelu Mudaliar and his two sons and that the sons are carrying on the business even after the death of Vadivelu Mudaliar and are, therefore, entitled to continue the eviction petition. In the counter -affidavit filed by the respondent in that application, there was no specific denial of the allegation made in the affidavit filed in support of that application that C.V.R. Press business for which the eviction petition was filed was a joint family business of Vadivelu Mudaliar and his sons and that the sons were carrying on the family business even after the death of Vadivelu Mudaliar, but it was contended by the respondent that the said allegations made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit were not correct. The Rent Controller allowed the petition by his order observing "that since the present petitioners had interest in the business which the petitioner carried on at the time when he died, the present petitioners are entitled to continue the proceedings as the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner, Hence it cannot be said that the claim of the deceased petitioner was personal". Subsequent to the addition of the petitioners as the legal representatives of the deceased Vadivelu Mudaliar, the respondent filed an additional counter contending that the petition for eviction was bled for Vadivelu Mudaliar's own occupation for his business purpose and the cause of action does not survive to the petitioners herein and the eviction petition has, therefore, to be dismissed.

(3.) The respondent trotted out somewhat a new case during the trial by staling in his evidence that the portion from which he was sought to be evicted was not in a sound condition and that it was not possible to run a printing press business in that portion. That case for which no plea was raised in the counter statement had been rejected by the Rent Controller.