SIVANRAJ Vs. ESSAKKIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions arise under Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control, Act, Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties are the same. The defeated tenant is the revision petitioner in both cases and landlord is the respondent. The parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord for purpose of the judgment.

(2.) IN C.R.P. No. 370 of 1999 eviction was sought on the ground of own occupation/additional accommodation under sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and, 10(3)(a) of the Act. The other revision petition is against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on the ground of wilful default.

(3.) MR. Peppin Fernando, learned counsel for the landlord, submitted that there is abundant material to show that the landlord was carrying on business on the date of the petition and in any event, he had taken at least one step in this direction. He had procured invoices for furniture from various agencies and the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court have clearly held that a significant step for carrying on business would be enough to entitle the landlord to seek eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. The learned counsel further submitted that the two authorities have concurrently found that the landlord had made out a case for eviction under the relevant provisions and sitting in revision under Section 25 of the Act there is no warrant for interference. There cannot be reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by the High Court.