A. PUNNA RAO Vs. R. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. An interesting question has arisen in this petition regarding the interpretation of the First Proviso to Section 10(3)(iii)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Madras Act XVIII of 1960). Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(c) deals with the right of a landlord to apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant occupying any portion of the building in which he is himself an occupant to put him in possession thereof if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of business which he is carrying or as the case may be. The section also makes it clear that the occupancy of the landlord may be either for residential or non -residential purposes and it provides him with the right notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10(3)(a). The proviso to Section 10(3)(iii)(c) runs as follows: Provided that, in the case of an application under Clause (c), the Controller shall reject the application if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord.

(2.) THE short facts of this case are : -The respondent filed an application under the above section for directions before the Rent Controller to the petitioner herein for possession of a portion of the building in which the petitioner is carrying on a coffee business. It is not in dispute that the respondent is carrying on in the very same premises electrical business, of his own. It is for purposes of expanding his electrical business apparently he sought for directions as above. The Rent Controller was satisfied that the requirement was genuine, but observed as follows: I am satisfied that the advantages that will accrue to the petitioner will outweigh the possible difficulty that will be suffered by the respondent, if eviction, is ordered.

(3.) THE appellate authority who heard the appeal of the petitioner did not advert himself to this aspect at all, but considered the question whether the requirement was genuine and concluded that the finding of the Rent Controller is justified. Against the order of the Appellate Authority the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.