T RAJYALAKSHMI Vs. K B ANANDHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 8.3.1995 made in R.C.A.No.754 of 1993 by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras thereby reversing the order dated 3.9.1992 made in R.C.O.P.No.3323 of 1989 by the XI Small Causes Judge, Madras.

(2.) THE Original Rent Control Petition has been filed by the landlady under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking eviction of the tenant for owners occupation on ground that the first respondent therein is the tenant in respect of the non-residential building at No.170, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1 in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.600 that the petitioner's husband Radhakrishnan is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s.T.Lakshmikantham Chetty & Sons at No.212, Bazaar Street,Sholingur, North Arcot District, that now the petitioner's husband has decided to do textile business and further he has intended to settle down along with the petitioner at Madras; that the premises consists of ground and first floor; that the entire ground floor is occupied by the first respondent therein for non-residential purpose and the first floor is occupied by other tenants for residential purpose; that neither the petitioner nor her husband owns any other property, either residential or non-residential, in the city of Madras; that the premises is located in busy commercial locality and would be convenient for their proposed textile business; that the first respondent therein, who deceased now, is the sister of the petitioner and in spite of many demands to vacate the premises for her personal occupation, she failed to do so and hence issuing an Advocate Notice dated 27.11.1989, thereby calling upon her to vacate the premises, the petitioner has filed the R.C.O.P. for vacating the tenant in order to occupy the premises by the owner herself.

(3.) DURING arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlady would contend that the petitioner and other sisters including the deceased first respondent in the original petition own their independent properties; that in 1980, in a family partition held between their mother and the sisters, the petition premises fell to the share of the revision petitioner; that the deceased tenant was allotted a house in Ammankoil Street, in which herself and her family members were living; that the deceased Geetha got married somewhere in 1974 and in the partition held in the year 1976, the ground floor was taken for business purposes by the second respondent the husband of the deceased first respondent and since he is an Executive Engineer and a Government servant, he could not do business; that having taken the tenancy in the name of his wife, he started the business of selling iron safes, bureaus and such other articles; that the revision petitioner got married during 1984-85 i.e., subsequent to the partition in the year 1980, that her husband is doing business at Sholingur and he wants to set up his business in the tenancy premises since they have decided to settle down at Madras, but their request had been turned down and hence the petition; that the revision petitioner and her husband have entered into box and deposed to the facts of the petition, that the first respondent herein and yet another Vudayavarlu have deposed on their side; that Exs.P-1 to P-28 have been marked on the side of the revision petitioner and Exs.R-1 to R-10 on the side of the respondents.