JUDGMENT:— The civil revision petition is filed against the judgment, dated 20th March, 1976 of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in C.M.A. No. 24 of 1974 reversing the order dated 21st March, 1974 of the Rent Controller, Devakottai, made in H.R.C. No. 70 of 1971.

2. The petitioner is the landlord. The tenant was one A.O.R.M. Arunachalarn Chettiar and the respondent before this Court is the L.R. of the said Arunachalam Chettiar. The petitioner purchased the building comprised in R.S. No. 39 from the original owner, Nagammai Achi who had already leased the building on the west to Arunachalam Chettiar for a monthly rent of Rs. 100. The petitioner filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller contending (a) the said Arunachalam Chettiar denied his title and claimed as though the entire R.S. No. 39 was leased out to him; (b) the said Arunachalam Chettiar, besides committing acts of waste also committed wilful default; (c) the petitioner required the building for his own residential as well as non-residential purposes. On the first two grounds the Rent Controller held against the petitioner. On the third ground, the Rent Controller held that though the requirement of the petitioner for doing diamond and jewellery business in the petition-mentioned premises is not a bona fide requirement, yet the requirement of the building for his residence and using the car shed for his car and for housing the machinery and putting up the cutting and polishing units of the diamond business is a bona fide requirement and the petitioner is entitled to evict the said Arunachalam Chettiar on this ground. Thiru Arunachalam Chettiar filed an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal he died and it is prosecuted by the legal representative who is now respondent before this Court. The only contention before the appellate Court was whether the requirement of the building by the petitioner for his own use and occupation was a bona fide requirement. The appellate Court held:

(1) In considering the question whether the building is required for personal residential occupation of the petitioner and the members of his family, the fact of possession of the house purchased by his wife with whom he admittedly resides is also a relevant factor to be considered, and when there is a house for residential occupation, the claim of the petitioner that the building let out for nonresidential purpose is essential for his immediate occupation is not a bona fide one.

(2) The nature of the building in question, the locality in which it is situated and the nature of the building in which the petitioner does his business and its location in a central place establish that the building in question can hardly be used for residential purpose and it can be used only for non-residential purpose for which it Was leased.

3. The building in question and its surroundings will not be suitable for doing diamond and jewellery business carried on by the petitioner in the rented building in the “heart of the town”. The cutting and polishing units are part of the diamond business carried on by the petitioner. When the building is not suitable for the diamond business carried on by the petitioner, the requirement of the building for locating the polishing and cutting units of the diamond business is not a bona fide requirement.

In the reply notice sent by the petitioner, there is no mention about the bona fide requirement of the building either for residential or non-residential purpose. Viewed against this background, the requirement of the building in question for the personal occupation of the petitioner is not a bona fide one. Aggrieved against the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner-landlord has filed this revision petition before this Court.

3. It is contended for the petitioner that the landlord is not disentitled from getting an order of eviction for his own residential purpose, merely because his wife has purchased a property and the use of the words “

Click Here to Read the rest of this document