B S RAMAMOORTHY Vs. O S PARASANATHACHARY

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 purposes 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 petition 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 show mart which he is running in the extreme west of the same building. It is further stated that the portion in which the shoe mart is being run is about 13 feet x 12 feet, and it is barely sufficient to use 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.) IT is next contended that the hardship that would be caused to the tenant by the order of eviction would outweigh the advantage which be derived by the landlord thereby. On this question, the original petition for eviction contains the following plea in paragraph 13: The respondent owns several buildings and tea stalls in madurai City. He keeps the undermentioned building locked and is wilfully and perversely refusing to vacate. The respondent is not therefore likely to suffer any disadvantage or hardship by being evicted from the building, while the petitioner really needs the building for his own use. In the counter statement, the tenant satisfied himself with merely stating that all the allegations in paragraph 13 are denied. P. W. 1 in his evidence stated that the tenant had an other shop just opposite to the petitions premises. He also stated that tenant had other places and that no inconvenience would be caused to him by the eviction. There is absolutely as cross-examination on that aspect by the tenant when P. W. 1 was in the witness box. In the evidence of the tenant, he admitted in his chief-examination that the shop situated opposite to the petition premises belonged to his son. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not deny the averment in the petition for eviction that he was having several buildings. He stated further that he was having another shop by name Ayyappan Coffee Nilayam at Door No. 66, South rasi Street. Though in the first instance he denied that Prasanna Coffee in door No. 217 A of South Masi Street belonged to him, later he admitted that prasanna Coffee was conducted by one of his sons. He also admitted that the invitation for opening of the shop marked an Ex. 4-6 was issued by him. He admitted that the shop by name Siddhivinayagar shop belongs to his another son. He also admitted that his son-in-law is running a shop by name Jothimani Coffee shop. In the re-examination he stated that all his sons and himself are living together as one family. R. W. 2 is one of the sons of the tenant. No admits that all the sons are living with the father together and that the various shops referred to by the father are being run by himself, his brothers and the father. The evidence makes out that the tenant is in a position to shift his business to anyone of the other shops. The admission of the tenant that he is having a shop just opposite to the petition premises is sufficient to prove that no hardship that would be caused to the tenant by the order of eviction would not outweigh the advantage which may be derived by the landlord. In the circumstances, the findings of the authorities below that the respondent is entitled to an order of eviction under S. 10 (3) (c) of the Act have to be upheld.