MANI PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. M R GANESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2013 made in R.C.A.No.296 of 2007 on the file of the VII Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Small Causes Court, Chennai, by reversing the fair and decretal order dated 16.04.2004 made in R.C.O.P.No.980 of 2002 on the file of the X Judge (Rent Controller), Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) The deceased petitioner namely, Sathya Moorthy Gupta is tenant and respondent is landlord. The said Sathya Moorthy Gupta died and the petitioners 1 and 2, who are the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner, were brought on record. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.980 of 2002 on the file of the X Small Causes Court, Chennai, against the petitioners for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. According to the respondent, the deceased petitioner is tenant under the respondent in the ground floor portion on a monthly rent of Rs.2,185/-. The respondent is carrying on business publishing and selling education books. The respondent is having his office in the fourth floor of the petition premises and also occupying rear side portion in the ground floor. Due to lack of accommodation, the respondent is giving the printing work outside and incurred heavy loss in his business profits. The respondent is finding it difficult to instal the printing machine to extend his business. The customers are finding it difficult to come to fourth floor by climbing staircase. The respondent is in need of petition premises for additional accommodation. The petition premises is facing road side and it will be convenient for the respondent to display the books. The petition premises is very convenient for the business of the respondent and his requirement for the same for additional accommodation is bonafide. If the petitioners do not vacate the petition premises, the respondent will be put to hardship and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, as suitable accommodation would be available to the petitioners in the same locality.

(3.) The petitioners filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondent and submitted that requirement of the respondent for additional accommodation is not bonafide. The intention of the respondent is only to get enhancement of rent from the petitioners. When the petitioners refused to pay the enhanced rent, the respondent filed the R.C.O.P. Earlier, the respondent and his father filed R.C.O.P.Nos.2787 of 1986 and 1159 of 1998 on the very same ground, but they did not pursue the same. There is vacant space available in the ground floor and the respondent can utilise the same. Whenever the portion of the petition building becomes vacant, the respondent lets out the same to the third parties. Recently, the respondent let out one portion in the ground floor to M/S.M.M.Watch Company. The portion under occupation of the petitioners is not convenient for the business of the respondent. The petitioners are running a restaurant in the petition premises for a long time and it will be difficult for the petitioners to get accommodation for running restaurant in the same locality. If they are evicted, it will be put to hardship and the hardship which may be caused to the petitioners will outweigh the advantage that may accrue to the respondent.