BASHRUDDIN Vs. P SOMASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner. He sought the eviction of the respondent/tenant on the grounds of wilful default and own occupation. THE ground of wilful default has been found against the landlord by both the authorities and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the landlord is not pressing the same. We are therefore to note the facts necessary for own occupation only. THE respondent became a tenant under the petitioner in respect of his house and ground bearing door No.4/25-A, Church Road, Pallavaram, Cantonment, Madras-43 on a monthly rent of Rs.500. THE petitioner is having a automobile repair shop at Pallavaram. He has also got a transport service there. He owns some buses plying from Madras to various places in south. THE office of this bus service is also at Pallavaram. At the time of filing the petition he was residing in Madras City about 25 kilometres away from the workshop and in a rented house and his landlord also called upon him to vacate the premises. Even otherwise, the petitioner is finding difficulty to commute from Royapuram to Pallavaram the distance to and fro being 50 kilometres. He is also obliged to work till late hours every night and has also to come to the workshop very early in the morning. He is forced to travel at. all odd hours to attend to his business. He wants to settle down in Pallavaram in his own place. He therefore requires the premises in the occupation of the respondent for his own occupation and his requirement is bona fide. THE respondent is liable to be evicted under Section-10 (3)'a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) ' Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It should be mentioned here itself that the nature of the tenancy is mentioned as residential in the petition.

(2.) THE respondent resisted the application raising the following contentions: He became a tenant under the petitioner's brother one Tajudeen in the year 1977 to stay and to run a photo studio called Lakshmi Studio. This Studio was opened as early as 11.7.1977 under the presidentship of one Parameswaran . Petitioner's brother also attended the grand function organised in this connection. Eversince, 1977 the respondent had been paying all the taxes like professional tax, electricity charges, etc.. In fact, the tax receipts were issued by the authorities concerned in the name of the respondent as Proprietor of Lakshmi Photo Studio. He had also got a telephone installed with the permission of the landlord in the name of the Photo Studio. At the time of occupying the property he paid a sum of Rs.600 as advance to Tajudeen. In the front portion respondent is running his Photo Studio and in the rear portion from the year 1977 onwards the respondent is using the property and residing in a portion. Tajuddin himself is quite aware of the said tenancy. In December, 1977 Tajuddin informed the respondent that the petition property had been allotted in the name of the petitioner and therefore he should pay his rent to the petitioner. Since December 1977 the respondent has been paying the rent to the petitioner. THE requirement by the petitioner is not a bona fide one. He has no idea at all to shift the family to occupy the premises. A major portion of the building is used for non-residential purposes and the dominant user of_ the building is only for non-residential purposes. THE building itself was let out originally mainly for non-residential purpose and the petitioner cannot maintain the application for requirement for residential purpose. In fact, the rear portion was let out only for non-residential purpose in the year 1977. THE petitioner owns a number of other premises also and the petition has been filed only to harass the respondent.

(3.) SINCE the learned counsel for the respondent has raised a point regarding the scope of Section 25 of the Rent Control Act, it would be necessary to refer to some decided cases on the point, (i) In Hari Shankar And Others v. Rao GirdhariLat Chowdhury AIR 1963 SC 698 : 1962 Supp (1) SCR 933 dealing with Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmir Rent Control, Act. 1952 the Supreme Court set out the scope of the Revisional Powers of the High Court as under;: