M R M DURAIAPPA NADAR Vs. P THIRUPURASUNDARIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the landlady who is now paying rent at Rs.150 per month. THE petition for eviction of the tenant was filed by the landlady on two grounds. One ground was that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause as contemplated by Sec.10(2) (vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). THE other ground was that the building was bona fide required by the landlady for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition was to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to he demolished as contemplated under Sec.l4(l) (b). On evidence, the Rent Controller held on both the grounds in favour of the landlady. He held that the building was not in a sound condition and that it needed to be demolished. He further held that the landlady had established beyond doubt that she was in possession of sufficient means to carry out demolition and reconstruction. This conclusion was expressly based on three documents Exs.P-5 to P-7. Exs.P-5 series are the tax receipts issued by the Corporation of Madras, Ex.P-6 gives the details of income of the landlady submitted to the Income-tax Officer for the year ending 31-3-1981 and Ex.P-7 series are the Wealth Tax returns of the landlady for the year ending 31-3-1981.

(2.) SO far as the other ground was concerned, the Rent Controller referred to the evidence of the landlady herself who had stated that the shop was kept closed without being used for carrying on business for two years while another tenant P.W.3 had stated that the shop was closed for seven or eight years. The Rent Controller rejected the two account books Exs.R-1 and R-2 relating to the year 1980-81 on theground that the tenant had not filed any cash bill or credit bill to establish that he was doing business in rice. He also found that if Ex.R-1 was the day book and Ex.R-2 was the ledger, they could not be held to be genuine because in Ex.R-2, Rs.6,250 was shown as capital but there was no corresponding entry in Ex.R-1. He also referred to the fact that Exs.R-1 and R-2 did not contain any account for the months of June and July,1981 and rejected the explanation of the tenant as to why accounts were not written for these months. Having rejected these two documents, he came to the conclusion that the tenant had ceased to occupy the petition premises for more than two years.

(3.) IN this revision petition filed by the tenant, it was argued by the learned counsel that the Appellate Authority was in error in placing the burden of proof on the tenant by requiring him to show that the premises were in his occupation. Further, according to the learned counsel, the inconsistency between the evidence of P.W.3 and the landlady where the landlady stated that the shop was closed for two years and P.W.3 stated that the shop was closed for seven or eight years would itself be destructive of the case of the landlady.It was also argued that even if the tenant had kept his goods inside the shop and had not removed them lock, stock and barrel, the premises must be treated as being in his occupation. The learned counsel, therefore, attacked the finding that he had ceased to occupy the premises.