A. AHMED AND CO. Vs. M. ANWAR BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant who suffered eviction before the authorities below filed the above revision. The landlord respondent filed a petition under Sec. 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act 18 of I960 and Act 23 of 1973 to evict the respondent from the premises bearing Door No. 45 (Ground floor), Kattur Sadayappan Street, Periamet, Madras 600 003. According to the landlord, he was carrying on his business under the name and style of M/s. Anwar & Co. at No. 23, E.K.Guru Street, Periamet, Madras -600 003 which is a rented premises. Since the landlord of that building wanted him to vacate, the petitioner wanted the building in question for his own occupation for carrying on the said business.

(2.) The petitioner/tenant filed a counter contesting the petition. In the counter, it is denied that the petitioner is carrying on business under the name and style of Anwar and Co. at No. 23, E.K.Guru Street, Periamet, Madras -3. It is also the specific case of the tenant that the landlord is having non -residential premises of his own in the city. Referring to earlier proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 100/80 and 505/85, the tenant has stated that the object of the landlord is only for eviction and not for any bona fide reason as stated by the landlord. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority found that the landlord wants the premises for his own occupation and his claim is a bona fide one. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant has filed the above revision.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was carrying on business on the date of filing of the petition at No. 23, E.K.Guru Street, Periamet, Madras -3 and his landlord wants him to vacate the said premises, admittedly from March 1989 onwards, the petitioner has shifted hi s business to No. 118, Vepery High Road, Madras -7. In the absence of any evidence as to why he wants to shift the present business from No. 118, Vepery High Road, Madras -7, to the premises in question the landlord is not entitled an order of eviction. The learned counsel further submitted that having admitted that the petitioner is a Wealth Tax assessee and he is in possession of Wealth Tax Assessment which shows the number of properties owned by the petitioner in the city. Admittedly, the said document was not filed before the court and so adverse inference could be arrived at against the landlord. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that Ex.R -1 shows that the petitioner owned some property in the town and so the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is his further case that the landlord has constructed the third floor and to prove that, the tenant filed an application for appointment of Commissioner which was erroneously dismissed by the Appellate Authority.