ORDER. — The unsuccessful landlord before the Appellate Authority in proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is the petitioner. The petitioner is a partnership com-pany in which there are three partners, Mawaharlal Mehta, Rasiklal Mehta, and Bhismachandra Mehta. It is admitted that this partnership, owns premises No. 79/A and B, Sambudoss Street, Madras and they are in occupation of shop No. 12 in the said premises. The petitioner has also another business in the same shop No. 12 in the ground-floor the name and style of which is Bombay Hardware Syndicate. In this partnership the father of the three partners already referred to is also a partner. The claim of the petitioner partnership, which we would call the A partnership, sought for possession of shop No.l3,which is adjacent to shop No. 12 in the occupation of the tenant-respondent on the ground that the partnership business of the Bombay Hardware Syndicate (hereinafter referred to as the B partnership) was expanding and that therefore additional space was required by the B partnership. The A partnership therefore filed the present application under section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of requirement of additional accommodation for the business of the B partnership. This was resisted by the respondent on more than one ground. Firstly he would say that the petition is not maintainable under section 10 (3)(c) of the Act, as the A partnership is different from the B partnership in the eye of law, since they are two independent entities. The other ground was that, even if the application was maintainable, the hardship which might be caused to the respondent-tenant would outweigh the advantage which the A partnership might gain as a result of the eviction.

2. The Rent Controller found that the A partnership was entitled to an order of eviction and that the eviction of the tenant was for the purpose of accommodating the B partnership. On appeal the Appellate Authority held that the A partnership was different from the B partnership and that, as the additional accommodation was required only for the business of the B partnership and not for the A partnership, which was the owner of the premises, the petition was not maintainable under section 10 (3) (c) of the Act. One other contention was raised before the Appellate Authority, namely, that in an earlier proceeding, the A partnership was permitted by this Court in R.J. Mehta & Co., represented by its partners v. Narayana Singh Protham Singh1, to take proceedings on the fact that the premises was required for the B partnership and that therefore that decision would operate as res judicata. This was also negatived by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the casual observation made in R.J. Mehta & Co., represented by its partners v. Narayana Singh Protham Singh1, would not amount to a decision in favour of the A partnership. In the result, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of the Rent Controller directing eviction.

3. The same contentions are repeated be fore this Court. We shall now take up the question whether by reason of certain observations made earlier by Varadarajan, J., in R.J. Mehta & Co. represented by its partners v. Narayana Singh Protham Singh1, the plea of the tenant is not available to him and whether the A partnership could maintain its petition under section 10 (3) (c) of the Act. The A partnership filed an earlier petition in the year 1966, H.R.C. No. 3280 of 1966 against the same tenant on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy shop No. 13 and that the said shop was required as additional accommodation by the A partnership. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority did not agree with the case of the A partnership. In the course of the proceedings the A partnership sought

Click Here to Read the rest of this document