B.S. RAMAMOORTHY Vs. O.G. PARAMANATHACHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, who has suffered an order of eviction before the authorities below has filed this revision petition. The respondent sought eviction on two grounds, viz, wilful default in payment of rent and requirement for additional accommodation for purpose of his business. The Rent Controller granted eviction on both the grounds while the appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of wilful default, but confirmed the finding on the ground of additional accommodation.

(2.) In the question for eviction it is stated in paragraph 12 that the landlord requires the petition building for purposes of manufacturing and repairing shoes as an adjunct of the shoe mart which he is running in the extreme west of the same building. It is further stated that the premises in which the shoe mart is being run is about 13 feet, x 12 feet, and it is barely sufficient to use as show room and for keeping the goods. It is also averred that there is no space available for manufacturing and repairing of shoes and that the landlord wants to expand his business. In the counter statement there is a general denial of the averments found in the petition, But, there is no specific denial by the tenant. He had merely stated that it was false to allege that the portion occupied by the tenant was required by the landlord for alleged additional accommodation and that the claim of the landlord was not a bona fide one.

(3.) In the evidence, the landlord deposed as P.W. 1 that he required the entire portion for his purposes. He stated that he was having a shoe mart and the portion in the occupation of the tenant was required as additional accommodation. In the cross-examination it was elicited from P.W. 1 that he retired from Meenakshi Mills in 1970-71 and the shoe mart was opened on 20.11.1980. It was also elicited that the shoe mart was being run by his wife. Ex. B2 is the invitation for the opening of the shoe mart and it is produced by the tenant himself. P.W. 1 admitted that it was necessary for him to purchase leather for the purpose of manufacturing shoes. He also admitted that there was no job card for repairs of shoes and that he had not commenced manufacture of the shoes. The tenant gave evidence as R.W. 1. He stated that the shop in the occupation of the landlord measured only 11ft x 7 ft. Thus, according to the evidence of the tenant. the area occupied by the landlord was much less than the area mentioned in the petition for eviction. A reading of the entire evidence of P.W. I along with the pleadings of the parties shows that the requirement for additional accommodation for the purpose of manufacturing and repairing shoes is a bona fide one. At any rate it cannot be said that the acceptance of the evidence of P.W. 1 by the authorities below is erroneous.