NANDAN BROTHERS Vs. KAMALADEVI CHANDAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY my order dated December 7, 1988,1 called a finding from the Rent Controller on the question whether the respondent herein require the portions in the occupations of the revision petitioner bonafide for the purpose of their business. I permitted the parties to let in evidence before the Rent Controller and directed the latter to consider the evidence on record and submit a finding. In the said order, I had considered some of the contentions urged by the revision petitioners and gave my decision thereon. First I rejected the argument that the Appellate Authority was in error in receiving additional evidence produced before him and held that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority was proper and authorise d by law. Secondly, the contention that the application ought to have been filed under S. 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and it was not maintainable as it was filed under S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act was negatived by me. Thirdly, I held that the respondents were carrying on business in premises which are not owned by them.

(2.) I felt it necessary to give an opportunity to the parties to let in evidence as regards to bonafide requirement as defined by the Supreme Court in Hamedia Hardware Stores v B. Mohan Lal Sow-car, 102 L. W. 1 (S. CA. I. R. 1988 S. C. 1060 ). I permitted the parties to let in evidence on the question whether the portions of the building whether the portions of the building which fell vacant after the filing of the eviction petitions and were in the control of the respondents were sufficient for the purpose of the businesses of the respondents.