SREE BALAJI KRISHNA HARDWARE STORES REPRESENTED BY PARTNER, SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. Vs. SRINIVASIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent. Eviction petition was filed to evict the petitioner on the ground that the building is required for owner's occupation, that is for the partnership business of the respondent's sons. This has been opposed by the petitioner herein. But however, the Rent Controller has Ordered eviction and allowed the R.C.O.P. The appeal filed was dismissed by the appellate authority. Now the petitioner has filed the present revision.

(2.) Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the primary factor is bona fide in a case where eviction is sought for on the ground of owner's occupation. The respondent filed earlier H.R.C.No. 1659 of 1987 stating that his son Madanagopal is interested in setting up a business of his own and therefore he requires the shop for own use. The said petitions was dismissed holding that the son of the respondent was not carrying on any business and has also not made any preparation for the business. The appeal preferred by the respondent was also dismissed. Subsequently the respondent required the premises for owner's occupation, that is for the partnership business of N.S.V. Balakrishnan Chetty, of which the respondent is one of the partners. That was not pursued. Now the petition has been filed for the owner's occupation stating that the respondents sons Sekar and Madanagopal are carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of Sri Renuka Enterprises' in rented premises and they want to occupy the petition premises. In view of the different stand and different point of time by the respondent, it has to be construed that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide one. The other contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly during the pendency of the proceedings, of the two sons the partners in 'Sri Renuka Enterprises', one of the partners Sekar had retired from partnership and as such the business concern has become a proprietary concern of Mr. Madanagopal one of the sons of the landlord. The requirement sought for originally do not exist and hence eviction cannot be Ordered. The further contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that when admittedly several portions of the property fell vacant and the respondent did not occupy the same for the purpose of 'Sri Renuka Enterprises', the non -occupation by the petitioner as and when other portions fell vacant would also extinguish the requirement of the landlord for owner's occupation.

(3.) On the contrary, counsel for the (sic) contended that both the Authorities below have considered the materials available on record and concurrently held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. The finding is purely a question of fact and as such this court cannot reappraise the evidence. Both the authorities below have found that the portions fell vacant during the pendency of the proceedings are not suitable for the business of 'Sri Renuka Enterprises' and as such the non -occupation of the premises, which fell vacant during the pendency of the proceedings do not vitiate the bona fide requirement of the landlord.