Judgment.-The petitioners are the tenants, who had succeeded before the Rent Controller, but lost before the appelate authority. They occupy six rooms in the ground floor of the building called ‘Jaya Mansions’ in Periamet, Madras. The respondent’s case is that in a partition effected in December, 1972 between himself and his two brothers he obtained 38 rooms in the first and second floors and 11 rooms in the ground floor for his share. He filed petitions for eviction of the petitioners herein and another occupying the said six shops in the ground floor on the ground that he required additional accommodation for locating his kitchen, dining halls, office, servants’ quarters and store-room and also for providing an entrance to the vacant space situate behind the building to be used as a car park in connection with bis hotel, restaurant, boarding and lodging business.

2. The petitioners herein opposed the petitions contending that the respondent is not already carrying on any hotel, restaurant, boarding and lodging business in the premises and, therefore, he is not entitled to seek their eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under section 10 (3) (c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The petitioners further contended that cars were being parked only on the road previously and that the petitions for eviction are not bona fide as the respondent had no means to start any hotel business having regard to the fact that he had not paid the electricity charges of Rs. 4,000 resulting in the supply of electricity being disconnected and also he was not in a position to pay income-tax arrears to the extent of Rs. 50,000 as a result of which the tenants have been compelled to pay the rents to the Income-tax department on pain of distress warrants being issued against them in case of non-payment. The petitioners also contended that the hardship that maybe caused to them by the order of eviction will outweigh the advantage that may accrue to the respondent.

3. The learned Rent Controller upheld the pleas of the petitioners that the respondent is not carrying on any business at present and, therefore, he is not entitled to seek eviction of the petitioners under section 10 (3) (c) of the Act on the ground of requirement of additional accommodation and also that his requirement was not bona fide. He dismissed the petitions without going into the question of the relative hardship that may be caused and the advantage that may accrue to the parties.

4. On appeal, the respondent produced Exhibit P-10, a police licence issued to him after the date of the petition for running a lodging house in the premisis and it was admitted as additional evidence by the appellate authority as per order in M.P. No. 160 of 1976. The appellate authority allowed the appeals on the ground that the respondent had made necessary preparations for starting a boarding house and that his request for additional accommodation is bona fide.The appellate authority found that the liability to pay the income-tax arrears of Rs. 50,000 which has not been paid, would show that the respondent is a well-to-do person having means to carry on the business. He disagreed with the Rent Controller and found that the petitions under section 10 (3) (c) of the Act are maintainable on the ground. that the respondent had made necessary preparations by way of white-washing and colour washing of the premises, providing mosaic flooring for the premises and obtaining police licence, Exhibit P-10 and that he was in occupation of 38 rooms in the first and second floors and 11 rooms in the ground floor. He has construed possession as occupation. As regards the hardship the appellate authority found that the advantage to the respondent would be greater than the hardship to the petitioners. It has also found that there was an additional safeguard under section 10 (5) of the Act which provides that where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building in pursuance of a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document