Eviction petition in absence of fixed period by a registered deed in the lease may be filed at any time.

When the matter came up for admission, the respondent took notice as Caveator, the matter was argued for final disposal.

2. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The eviction was sought on the ground of owner's occupation. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority concurrently held that the respondent had proved that the property is required for his own occupation and therefore, the tenant is before us.

3. The petition property is situate in T.No.4165, East Main Street, Pudukottai Town, and is a non-residential one. The petitioner, claims to have been inducted as a tenant in 1979 and had continued in possession as tenant subject to increase of rent periodically. In 1992, there was an exchange of correspondence between the parties and the letter dated 22.10.1992, which was marked as Ex.R3 was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent. According to Ex.R3, the petitioner indicated their willingness to occupy the premises for a further period of ten years subject to an option for renewal for another period of three years, and it is also seen from Ex.R3, that the rent will be Rs.5000/- per month and that already a sum of Rs.14,000/= is with the respondent as advance rent and that the petitioner had agreed to pay a further advance of Rs.36,000/= aggregating to a total of Rs.50,000/= as advance.

4. The respondent filed RCOP.No.18 of 1994 for eviction under Section 10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). The respondent claimed that he is carrying on a hotel business as a partner along with others in a rented building in Pudukottai Town and that he has made preparations to start a hotel business in the suit premises which is more suitable for the business and that he does not own a non-residential building similar to the petition property in Pudukottai Town and that his requirement is bonafide. In the counter, the petitioner stated that the petition for eviction is not maintainable and that periodically, the respondent would threaten to initiate proceedings for eviction, but would allow the petitioner to continue as a tenant on payment of enhanced rent. It was specifically stated that in 1979, the respondent prayed for eviction on the same ground and on an understanding to pay an enhanced rent, the petitioners were allowed to continue. The petitioners also stated that the requirement was not bonafide.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable, since according to Section 10(3)(d) of the Act, where the tenancy was for a specified period, the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this sub-section before the expiry of such period. The learned counsel would submit that when Ex.R3 has been marked on admission without reservation the contents thereto cannot be challenged and for that, reliance was placed on the decision of LIONEL EDWARDS LTD., VS. STATE (AIR 1967 Calcutta 191) and also under Section 58 of The Evidence Act. The learned counsel would also submit that it is apparent from the evidence as well as pleadings that the requirement is not bonafide. The respondent's contention that he wants to start his own business is clearly false and in the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it had been elicited that he is doing contract business and therefore, where the landlord seeks owner's occupation he must prove his bonafides and since the respondent's claim is not bonafide eviction ought not to have been ordered.

6. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Caveator on the other hand submits that it is not open to the petitioner to claim that there was a tenancy for five years without there being a registered document to prove the same, and that an unregistered lease deed is not being admissible in evidence, the tenancy must be deemed to be a monthly tenancy, and Section 10(3)(d) would not arise. The learned Senior counsel would also submit that the fact that the responden