K S MUNAWAR JAN BEGUM Vs. H SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.2.1995 made in R.C.A.No.53 of 1992 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem thereby dismissing the said appeal and confirming the fair and decretal order dated 17.8.1992 made in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Munsif, Salem.

(2.) REGARDING the facts, it is the landlady, who filed the petition before the Rent Controller under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, seeking the eviction of the tenant on ground of requiring the premises for her additional accommodation. On her part, the landlady would allege in her rent control application that she purchased the petition property on 14.8.1989 and even prior to her purchase, her husband was running a shoe-mart in the petition premises thus making use of the same for non-residential purposes; that the respondent is in occupation, as the tenant, of a portion of the petition is in occupation, as the tenant, of a portion of the petition premises measuring 3? ? 10? running a watch repair shop therein; that the tenant in spite of intimation to the effect that the petitioner had purchased the property and in spite repeated demands made on her part from the date of her purchase of the said property to vacate the premises for the convenient running of the shoe-mart of her husband, which at present does not have sufficient frontage and the approach to the shoe-mart being very narrow thus causing lot of inconvenience in the running of the shoe-mart business, did not vacate the premises and hence the petition. The petitioner would further contend that if additional accommodation is not granted, the petitioner and her family members would be subjected to much loss and hardship apart from the loss that their business premises.

(3.) DURING arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/landlady would contend that the revision petitioner herein filed the application under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 before the Rent Controller seeking the petition premises for additional accommodation for the better running of the shoe-mart business of her husband and the Rent Controller dismissed the petition on ground that no substantial evidence was placed on record in proof of bona fides of the petition and that the petitioner has not taken any step to appoint the Commissioner. But in rent control appeal, the Commissioner was appointed and the report of the Commissioner reveals that if one stands in front of the passage on the road and looks at the shoe-mart can be seen otherwise, the shoe-mart, which is inside cannot be visible to a passerby and there is a sign board over the passage portion in front of the shop. Reading out this part of the Commissioner's Report, marked as Ex.C-1, the learned counsel would point out that the petitioner does not have proper frontage for the business of her husband and would say that the Rent Controller is not right in rejecting the petition.