Legal heirs who prove the bonafide requirement can maintain the eviction petition.

This revision petition is filed against the fair and final order passed by the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam) in R.C.A.No.8 of 1991 DATED 18.9.1995.

2. The revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased landlord Manicka Nadar, who initiated the proceedings before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Kumbakonam for eviction of the 1st respondent/tenant (since deceased) from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for running the dhal business run by his wife, the 1st petitioner herein in a rented premises belonging to Sri Rajagopalasamy Temple at Kumbakonam. Having analysed the evidence adduced on either side and upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction holding that the requirement of the petition premises by the landlord for own occupation is bona fide. The 1st respondent/tenant (since deceased) preferred the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority wherein the Appellate Authority after analysing the evidence on record and the arguments advanced on either side allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Hence the revision.

3. The petition for eviction was filed by the landlord with the specific plea that his wife Janaki Ammal, 1st petitioner herein was selling dhal in a rented premises belonging to Sri Rajagopalasamy temple for about 40-45 years prior to the filing of the petition and that since the Devasthanam of the said temple requires possession of the said premises from his wife, it has become necessary to file the petition. P.W.1, the 2nd petitioner herein has also produced Ex.P-6, a notice issued by Sri Rajagopalasamy Temple Devasthanam to the 1st petitioner Janakiammal demanding her to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the Devasthanam, along with the receipts for payment of rent by her to the temple under Exs.P-10 to P-17.

4. Similarly, 3rd respondent herein has also candidly admitted in his evidence as R.W.1 that the 1st petitioner herein, landlord's wife was carrying on the business in selling dhal in Big Bazaar Street, Kumbakonam in a rented premises belonging to Sri Rajagopalasamy Temple Devasthanam and that the landlord did not own any non-residential premises of his own in Kumbakonam town. The learned counsel for the petitioners has therefore urged on the basis of the evidence of both P.W.1 and R.W.1 that the requirement of the premises for own use and occupation is bona fide and that therefore, the fair and decretal orders passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has to be set aside.

5. The factual aspect of the case falls within a narrow compass as narrated above. The learned counsel for the respondents has put forth his main contention that the requirement of the petition premises by the landlord is not bona fide for the simple reason that he did not carry on the business on the date of filing of the eviction petition and he has relied upon the decisions (1) RANGASWAMY NAIDU v. TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERSCO-OP. SOCIETY LTD (1982 (I) M.L.J. 130); (2) MUNIAMMAL v. SUNDARA MAHALINGAM (1990 (II) M.L.J. 186); and (3) SP.S.S. MEDICAL HALL v. IBRAHIM & CO (1992 (I) M.L.J. 472) in support of such arguments.

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioners has adverted my attention to the facts of the case involved in the said decisions and urged that the ratio laid down therein is not squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as they differ in respect of all particulars. Firstly, he has pointed out that in the case decided in 1982 (I) M.L.J. 130, since the landlord was not actually carrying on any business either by himself or through any one of the members of his family on the date of filing the petition for eviction, it was held by R. SENGOTTUVELAN, J. (as he then was) relying on the ratio laid down in an earlier decision, 1959 (II) M.L.J. 215 (T.K. KRISHNA IYER v. K