M RAMASWAMY NAIDU Vs. P VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the question for decision is one under section 7(3)(a)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. The petitioner is a tenant of a non-residential godown bearing door No. 502/12 in Nellore town, where he is carrying on business. The respondent is tile landlord. The respondent filed B.R.C. No. 77 of 1958 before the Rent Controller, Nellore, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the godown in question is bona fide required by him for carrying on his own business. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, and on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore, confirmed the order of eviction. The building originally belonged to the respondent's adoptive father who executed a settlement deed, Exhibit P-1, dated 21st October, 1954. The petitioner was a tenant of the suit godown for over twenty years from the original owner, that is, the respondent's adoptive father, Subbarayulu Chetty. In M.B.C. No. 80 of 1946, the said Subbarayulu Chetty attempted to evict the petitioner, but ultimately in C.M A.No. 13 of 1947 the petitioner herein succeeded and the petition for eviction was dismissed. Subbarayulu Chetty himself had another godown of his own, running his shroff business, and therefore could not succeed in evicting the petitioner. As stated above, as per Exhibit P-1, the suit godown was settled on the respondent and the petitioner herein attorney to him and was paying him rent subsequent to the deed of settlement.

(2.) Two points are argued by Sri A. Kuppuswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He contended that the settlement deed, Exhibit P-1, is only a nominal one executed with the purpose of enabling the respondent to file another petition for eviction. He pointed out that the adoptive father, Subbarayulu Chetty, is still in possession of the properties covered by the deed of settlement, that the respondent is only 17 years old, and lie also referred me to the recitals in Exhibit P-1 which indicate that the deed of settlement is only a make-believe. I am unable to agree with this contention for the reason that the petitioner recognised the respondent as the owner of the building and attuned to him and was paying him the rent agreed upon from the time of the deed of settlement. There is no substance in this contention.

(3.) Secondly, it is argued that admittedly the respondent is carrying on business in a godown taken on lease by him from one Ranganayakamma in Korada Street, Nellore. The respondent adduced evidence which was accepted by the Rent Controller and on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore, to prove that the respondent bona fide wanted to carry on business and in fact rented a godown as per Exhibit P-8 from Ranganayakamma on 9th September, 1958, for a period of six months and that he applied for the necessary licences for carrying on business and that, in fact he was carrying on business in the premises obtained under Exhibit P-8. The business was started in the said premises by the respondent on 10th September, 1958. It is stated that the present application for eviction was filed on 28th November, 1958. Therefore, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent it occupying for the purpose of the business which he is carrying on in a non-residential building in Nellore town to the possession of which he is entitled under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, and that therefore the respondent is not entitled to an order of eviction against the petitioner under section 7 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. It is necessary to refer to the said section which reads as follows:-