P A SUNDARAM Vs. S AMARAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is the landlord/ petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.2720 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras and the respondent in R.C.A.No.491 of 1990 on the file of the Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. THE respondent herein is the tenant/respondent before the Rent controller and the appellant before the Appellate Authority. THE eviction of the respondent was sought for on the ground of additional accommodation falling under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. THE Rent Controller ordered eviction and on the appeal preferred by the tenant, the order of eviction was set aside. Hence, the present revision at the instance of the landlord.

(2.) I heard Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. According to Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, the Appellate Authority erred in law and on facts in reversing the well considered order of the Rent controller and therefore the order of the appellate Authority must be set aside. According to him, the materials placed before the Rent Controller by the landlord clearly establishes his requirement for additional accommodation and therefore the Appellate Authority ought to have confirmed the order of eviction granted by the Rent Controller. Opposing these submissions, Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel for the respondent argued that since the landlord had come before court seeking additional accommodation on account of the expansion of the business which he is carrying on, then, in the absence of proof regarding such expansion, the requirement of the landlord must necessarily be held to be not bona fide Further in this case, the landlord had not established about the extent and scope of the business which he is carrying on; on expansion which the business is said to have undergone and the insufficiency of the place in his occupation for the said business and therefore the Appellate Authority was right in rejecting the request. The learned counsel also argued that in all the correspondence exchanged between the parties earlier in point of time preceding the filing of the Rent Control original petition, there is no mention at all about the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation and therefore on that ground alone the order of the Appellate Authority has to be sustained. The learned counsel would finally add that the landlord has filed this petition as a ruse to evict the tenant for one reason or other since his earlier demand for payment of the higher rent was refused by the tenant.

(3.) IN the Rent Control original petition, the landlord had very clearly pleaded that the premises No.29, Jayalakshmi colony consists of the residential portion, printing press portion and the shop portion. It is his case that the business portion is not in any separate building, but it is carried on in a portion of the residential building itself. It appears from the materials that the portion where the printing press business is being arrived on lies in between the tenanted premises and the residential portion. The landlord had pleaded that his family consists of a large number of people. He had also spoken to about that in his oral evidence. IN the Rent control original petition, he has also pleaded that for want of proper place some of the family rooms in the said building are being utilised for their printing and binding business. IN his oral evidence he had stated that in his house there are printing press machineries. Of course, there is no specific pleading on this aspect in the Rent Control Original petition. But that does not matter according to me since he had pleaded in the Rent control original petition that for want of space some of the family rooms are utilised for his business purpose.