VARADHARAJAN Vs. KASTHURI KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment in RCA.No.RCA.No.6 of 1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellant Authority), Panruti, which had arisen out of the order in RCOP.No.9 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, (Rent Controller), Panruti.

(2.) RCOP.No.9 of 1990 was filed by the landlord under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According the petitioner in RCOP.No.9 of 1990 / landlord, the petition scheduled property beloned to the first petitioner absolutely and it is not a residential building, but a shop which is used for business purposes. The first petitioner had entered into a partnership agreement with the respondents 3, 4 & 6 and as per the terms and conditions of the partnership deed dated 1.4.1981, he was carrying on business in grocery in the name and style of 'Sri Rajeswari Stores, P.Sinivanan Pillai & Co'. The said business is being carried on by the respondent in the petition scheduled premises in the capacity of tenant under the first petitioner, who is the landlord. The rent was deposited in the account of the first petitioner by the respondent. The respondents 3 to 6 also carrying on business in the same petition scheduled property in the name and style of 'R.Varadharajan & Co.,'. Thereafter, the first petitioner came out of the partnership and the respondents are carrying on business after changing the name of the partnership. The first petitioner required the petition scheduled premises for his own use and occupation ie., for carrying on his business, since he (first petitioner) is carrying on his business in a rented premises, which belongs to one K.V.Muthaiya Chettiar. The said rented premises is so small and tiled building, which is not sufficient for the first petitioner to carry on his business. Only for expanding his existing business, the first petitioner requires the petition scheduled building. The respondents are having three shop buildings at Panruti and so there is absolutely no difficulty for them to shift their business. The first petitioner bonafide requires the petition schedule building for his own business, which he is carrying on in the rented premises. The petitioners have further alleged that the respondents have committed willful default in payment of rent from 1.4.1989 till 31.3.1990. So on the ground of willful default also the petitioner filed the petition for eviction.

(3.) THE petitioners have filed a reply counter contending that the repair works and improvement in the petition mentioned building are being properly carried by the petitioners and the respondents have not carried out even a minor repair in the petition scheduled building.