Eviction cannot be ordered without bonafides on part of landlord.

(Civil Revision Petition under 25 of the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the order and decretal order dated 4.9.2000 passed in R.C.A.No.35 of 1999 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (IV Additional subordinate Judge, Trainee District Judge), Coimbatore confirming in part the order and decretal order dated 5.3.1999 passed in R.C.O.P.No.132 of 1995 by the (Rent Controller) I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.)

The landlord is the Revision Petitioner, who was owning a building bearing Door No.21/693 in Ranga Gounder Street, Coimbatore town, the first floor of which was occupied by him for residential purpose; the ground floor of which was occupied by the Respondent/tenant on rental agreement. The landlord was running a tailoring business in some other area. In order to shift his tailoring business to the petition mentioned property, he required the ground floor for his own occupation.

2. Even though the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the Respondent/tenant, accepting the ground of owners occupation pleaded by the Revision Petitioner, by taking into account the subsequent event, that the landlord has shifted his residence from the first floor of the petition mentioned property to Ondiputhur, R.C.A. preferred by the Respondent/tenant was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on the ground that the landlord may occupy the first floor of the petition mentioned property for running his tailoring business.

3. True it is that the landlord need not be necessarily under a threat of eviction from the premises which he occupied as tenant, as fortified in Ravichandran and others v. Natarajan Nadar and others (2004 1 MLJ 458) and M.Aishath Najiya v. M/s Lalchand Kewalram and others (1989-II MLJ 28).

4. It is also true that the bona fide contemplated need not be put to acid test, creating unnecessary doubt then and there, compelling the landlord to answer each and every doubt raised by the tenants, in view of the inbuilt provisions in the Act, safeguarding the interest of the tenants, even after the eviction order is passed, provided, the conditions are not complied with [A.L.O. Gopal Sah, Chennai and others v. K.P.M. Musthaffa and others (2004)2 M.L.J 702]

5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/landlord again submitted that law does not say that the landlord shall always continue to do business in a rented premises even if they are entitled to get possession of their own building. [M/s.Boston and others v. S.A.Akbar and others 1998-I MLJ 270].

6. The Supreme court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co., Ltd., v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others[(2005)8 SCC 252] has held that "normal rule is that rights and obligations of parties are to be determined on date of petition and subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding relief, provided such events are of such a nature and dimension as to completely eclipse the need and make it lose significance altogether."

7. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly found that the requirement of landlord is not bona fide in as much as there is an opportunity for him to occupy the first floor of the petition mentioned property from where he shifted his residence to Ondiputhur making it to fall vacant; and that in that vacant first floor he may as well run his tailoring business and therefore there is no need for him to evict the Respondent/tenant from the ground floor of the said building.

8. Now, by virtue of the situation that there is vacant place in the first floor of the petition mentioned property it has to be seen whether the requirement of the landlord of the ground floor of the same building is bona fide. The landlord is not able to say that the first floor of the building is not worthy for occupation for running his tailoring business; and in the absence of which it has to be taken as if it is worthy and that requirement of ground floor in particular is not bona fide.

9. The learned counsel for