N ELANGOVAN Vs. S SUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the landlord of the property bearing No.261, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai~87, in which, shops measuring extents of 120, 160 & 120 Sq. Feets are the subject properties of the rent control proceedings. The petitioner herein had let out the shops to the respondents herein for commercial purposes, wherein the respondents are carrying on the business in the name and style of ?Indian Auto?, ?Hindu Sweet Stall? and ?Lakshmi Provision Store? respectively. Since the petitioner is a heart patient, who has undergone bye~pass surgery and being a driver who was plying tourist vehicles, it was not feasible for him to continue with his employment of driving and therefore, decided to have a travel agency in the aforesaid shops. Since the demised shop was very old and situated very low from the road, the petitioner intended to demolish the structure and build a new building to suit his proposed business. Though the respondents had initially agreed to vacate the demised shops, they refused to vacate, which prompted him to file the petitions for eviction on the ground of -own use and occupation- under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as -the Act-). The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the eviction petitions, as against which, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.Since the issue involved in all the revisions are one and the same, all these revisions are disposed through a common order.

(2.) Heard Mr.C.Uma Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Gopiraja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein intends to have his own travel agency for which purpose, he requires the shops. Since he is right now occupying a small portion of 40 sq. feet under the staircase of his own building for his travel agency, he bona~fidely requires the demised shops for his proposed business. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner does not own any other property other than the subject property. Since his requirement is bona~fide, the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority had erred in rejecting his applications. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner herein has temporarily accommodated himself in 40 sq. feet portion under the staircase which is not sufficient for his business, the learned Rent Controller cannot cite such a temporary accommodation as a bar and neither can the tenants dictate as to in which portion the petitioner should run his business. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon various decisions.