MESSRS GLAMOUR SAREE MUSEUM AND OTHERS Vs. THE TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, LIMITED, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Courts below have agreed on the scope of section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of Madras Act XVIII of 1960 that the landlord can take possession if he is not carrying on a particular business in a non-residential building of his own. On that view the Courts below also thought that, since the landlord, which is a cooperative society was not carrying on the particular business to the premises in Pantheon Road Co-optex Saree Museum It was entitled to an order of eviction. The petitioners who are tenants in No. 188, Mount Road, contest that view and have filed these petitions.

(2.) What persuaded the Courts below to take the view they did was that if the interpretation were otherwise. It would be a permanent impediment to the expansion of a landlord's business. They also relied on the words employed by the sections. Sec. 10 (3) (a) (iii) reads:

(3.) But it is argued for the landlord that No, 34, Pantheon Road, is being used by it only for administrative purposes, and the show room, in which sales are carried on, cannot be regarded as a business carried on in the premises. If the bulk of the building is utilised, as contended for the landlord, for administrative purposes and only a show room exists In a part of the building, it can fairly be assumed that the landlord, having regard to the substance of the matter, is not carrying on Co-optex Saree business in the premises. If, on the other hand, the finding is that the landlord is carrying on in the premises such business and the administrative activities are confined only to a portion of the premises, the landlord will, of course, be entitled to an order for eviction. The rent Controller recorded a finding that the building in Pantheon Road was primarily an administrative Building housing all the administrative organisations of the society, and, in the showroom, in a portion of the building sales were effected with a view not to disappoint visitors resorting to the show-room. The Lower Appellate Court did not record a specific finding on that question. It is therefore, necessary to remit the appeals to it for fresh disposal, in accordance with this judgment and to record a finding on the question. If the parties so desire, the Lower Appellate Court may record further evidence on that point. The petitions are allowed. The costs will abide the result. Petition allowed.