S. JASWANT SINGH Vs. A.R. RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is filed against the judgment, dated 20th March, 1976 of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in C.M.A. No. 24 of 1974 reversing the order dated 21st March, 1974 of the Rent Controller, Devakottai, made in H.R.C. No. 70 of 1971.

(2.) THE petitioner is the landlord. The tenant was one A.O.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar and the respondent before this Court is the L.R. of the said Arunachalam Chettiar. The petitioner purchased the building comprised in R.S. No. 39 from the original owner, Nagammai Achi who had already leased the building on the west to Arunachalam Chettiar for a monthly rent of Rs. 100. The petitioner filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller contending; (a) the said Arunahalam Chettiar denied his title and claimed as though the entire R.S. No. 39 was leased out to him; (b) the said Arunachalam Chettiar, besides committing acts of waste also committed wilful default; (c) the petitioner required the building for his own residential as well as non -residential purposes. On the first two grounds the Rent Controller held against the petitioner. On the third ground, the Rent Controller held that though the requirement of the petitioner for doing diamond and jewellery business in the petition -mentioned premises is not a bona fide requirement, yet the requirement of the building for his residence and using the car shed for his car and for housing the machinery and putting up the cutting and polishing units of the diamond business is a bona fide requirement and the petitioner is entitled to evict the said Arunachalam Chettiar on this ground. Thiru Arunachalam Chettiar filed an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal he died and it is prosecuted by the legal representative who is now respondent before this Court. The only contention before the appellate Court was whether the requirement of the building by the petitioner for his own use and occupation was a bona fide requirement. The appellate Court held:

(3.) IT is contended for the respondent that having leased out the building for a non residential purpose, it is not open to the petitioner to file a petition for eviction on the ground that fee requires the building both for residential and non -residential purposes. Since the building is not suitable for the diamond business carried on by the petitioner and as the cutting and polishing suits of the diamond business cannot be separated from the main diamond business as they formed one composite unit, the contention that the building is required by the petitioner for a non -residential purpose should be negatived.