K. PRABAKAR Vs. V. RAJAPPAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant who succeeded before the Rent Controller, but lost before the appellate authority in a petition filed for owners occupation is the revision petitioner. The petition was filed on the ground that the petition building lies as a single unit occupying a site measuring about 3752 sq. ft. consisting of ground floor and first floor. The building has been let out to three set of tenants and one of them the present revision petitioner is running a tailor shop under the name and style of Prabhakar Tailoring Palace. There are seven petitioners. First petitioner is carrying on business in chit fund. Second petitioner is a M. Sc. Graduate in Faculty of Medicine who is also a partner in Revijay Clinical Laboratory and Hospital and he is engaged as an Assistant Pathologist therein. Third petitioner is a M. Sc. graduate and he is working as an Engineer. The fourth petitioner is running a store as a partner thereof. Fifth petitioner who is a B. Sc. M. B., MACF, graduate in Medical Science is a qualified Doctor running a clinic for children in a rented premises at D. No. 91, Devangapet Street No. 3, Coimbatore. The sixth petitioner is a M.Sc. (Bio-Chemistry) Graduate having a special knowledge in running a Pathological laboratory, but he has no laboratory of his own. The seventh petitioner who is also a M.B.B.S. Graduate is a Doctor and he has no clinic of his own. In view of the qualifications of the petitioners 5 to 7 and the experience of the second petitioner, the petitioners have decided to start and run a hospital cum clinic and pathological laboratory in the petition mentioned building and they have made all the preparations therefor. In fact, petitioners 5 to 7 have specialised their studies only with that avowed object. Except the petition mentioned building, the petitioners do not own or occupy any other building in Coimbatore or elsewhere that can serve the said purpose on hand. Thus, the petitioners bona fide require the aforesaid building as a whole for the purpose of the business of running a hospital-cum-clinic and pathological laboratory for which purpose, the petitioners 2 and 5 to 7 are not occupying any building of their own in Coimbatore town.

(2.) The tenant Revision Petitioner contended inter alia that he became the tenant of the northern portion of the ground floor in the year 1963, southern portion of the ground floor in 1964, a room of the first floor in 1966 and back portion of the said room in the first floor in 1968. Besides, petition mentioned property, there are two other portions. The entire property is not a single unit. The physical feature of the property will show that the ground floor portion is distinct and separate with that of the first floor portion. Although, the petitioners are living separately they have no separate avocation of their own. II is stated that the first petitioner demanded a higher rent of Rs. 2,000.00 in the month of Feb., 1986. The tenant declined to agree for such a steep increase of rent. Enraged at this, the petitioners have now come forward with this application for eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. The tenant is carrying on the business for last 22 years, he has established good business and has got large and numerous customers in the her vicinity. He has also invested huge amounts for the decoration, show case and other articles. The petition mentioned property is not conducive and convenient place for running such a hospital-cum-clinical laboratory.

(3.) The petitioners examined the second petitioner and fifth petitioner, while the respondent tenant examined himself apart from one Rajkumar. 15 Exhibits have been marked on the side of the petitioners and five exhibits were marked on the side of the tenant. In the evidence the second petitioner, who examined himself as P.W. 1. had deposed that he is running a clinic of his own. Fifth petitioner is running a clinic in a rental premises. This petitioner has studied Bio-Chemistry and he has knowledge of running a laboratory. They intend to run a hospital-cum-pathological laboratory in the petition property and they have studied with that object only. They can start a Pathological Laboratory if the tenant is evicted. The second petitioner had also deposed that he had become a partner of Revijay Clinic even prior to the filing of the petition and Exs. A-3 is the proof for purchase of laboratory instruments. In the cross-examination he would say that all of them are doing independent business and he has not filed any document to show that fifth petitioner has been running a clinic in a rented premises. He has said that he is also a partner in "Revathi" laboratory, but he was not paid any salary. They have houses at 135, Sambandam Road. 132. Ramalingam Road, a house at Venkatakrishna Road and a common property at 26/46, Rangiah Gounder Street. He has also deposed that for running a hospital cum clinic there is no necessity to get a licence or permission from the Collector; that no licence is required for running a Pathological laboratory. P.W. 2 would also say in his evidence that he has been running a clinic at P.N. Pudur in a rented premises and the petition mentioned building alone can be used for the purpose mentioned in the petition. Fifth petitioner has deposed that he was running a clinic at No. 2. Devangapettai Street which is a rented premises and he has closed his clinic there. In the cross-examination he would say that from January, 1984 he was running a clinic at P.N. Pudur and there are four portions in that premises which is a rented premises. He denied in his cross-examination that the rent receipt was produced for the purpose of case. He has denied tha Exs. A. 10 to A. 12 which are S. Nos. 69 to 71 are not written at the same time. He has also denied that a licence is not necessary from the Municipality to run a Pathological Laboratory. He had also deposed that he has not said in the petition that he is running a clinic at P.N. Pudur. Exs. A.1 and A 2 were filed to prove the ownership of the building. Ex. A. 3 is filed to show that the second petitioner obtained a quotation for supply of surgical instruments. Exs. A. 4 to A. 9 are filed to show the sufficiency of funds in the hands of the petitioners to start such a clinic. Exs. A 10 to A. 12 are rent receipts issued by the landlord in favour of the second petitioner. Exs. A. 13aridA. 14 are tax demand and receipts respectively. Ex. A. 15 is the letter of tenancy. Ex. B. series have been filed to show that tenancy was given only in the name of the tenant and for the purpose for which it is being used.