It is not for tenant to dictate as to which building landlord should occupy.

(Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, preferred against the order of eviction dated 10.03.2004 passed in RCA No.41 of 1995 on the file of VIII Court of Small Causes at Madras, confirming the order dated 23.06.1994 passed in RCOP No.2390 of 1991 on the file of XVI Court of Small Causes at Madras.)

The tenant in R.C.O.P.No.2390 of 1991 has filed the present revision petition aggrieved against the order passed in R.C.A.No.41 of 1995 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, VIII Court of Small Causes, Madras dated 10.03.2004.

2. The case in brief is as follows:-

(a) Original landlord V.O.George filed the petition for eviction under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to evict the tenant-revision petitioner. In the petition, it is stated that the landlord is the owner of the building at door No.319, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Madras, consisting of ground + three floors. The respondent became a tenant under the landlord in respect in respect of the first shop portion on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- and it was raised in due course. The landlord, who is carrying on business in tyre retreading, sales and service of tyres and tubes in a rented premises at Door No.5, Whites Road, Second Lane, Royapettah, Chennai, for development of his business, wanted to occupy the portion let out to the tenant, which is in the Mount Road, Chennai. As the landlord is not owning any other property and the portions in the first, second and third floors are not suitable for his business, he had been requesting the respondent to vacate and hand over possession to him, to which, the tenant did not yield. The landlord issued a lawyer’s notice on 18.06.1991 terminating tenancy and calling upon the tenant to deliver vacant possession by 01.08.1991. As the tenant did not vacate even thereafter, but sent a reply on 06.08.1991, the petition for eviction had been necessitated.

(b) In the counter, the respondent contended that the requirement of the landlord is mala fide. The tenant contended that the petitioner is not doing business at No.5, Whites Road, Second Lane, Royapettah, and there is no necessity for him to shift the business to any other place as Whites Road, Second Lane is famous for tyre business. The landlord, after getting huge money for vacating the premises in his occupation at Swadeshi Mitran Complex, has purchased the property near Sathyam Theatre and he is doing tyre business there. According to the tenant, the landlord is not doing any business on the date of filing of the petition for eviction. The landlord gave pinpricks and cut off water supply and shut down the flow of natural light, toilet facilities, etc., to coerce the tenant to vacate the property in his possession. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(c) In the additional counter, the tenant submitted that one shop portion in the ground floor of the petition premises had fallen vacant and the landlord had renewed the tenancy of another tenant in the ground floor, namely, ‘Castle Furniture showroom’ by increasing the rent Therefore, the claim of the landlord is not bona fide and the prayer should be rejected.

(d) Before the Rent Controller, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-23. On the side of the tenant, two witnesses were examined and Exs. R-1 to R-3 were marked. A Commissioner was appointed and his report has been marked as Ex.C-1. On a consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller found that the case of the landlord is acceptable and the claim for eviction for owner’s occupation has been prov4ed and accordingly, allowed the eviction petition granting one month’s time for vacating the premises. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord V.O.George died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 5 in the appeal. On a re