Requirement of landlady held bonafide.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The above Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 24-2-1998 passed in RCA No. 807 of 1994 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai reversing the order dated 28-2-1994 passed in R.C.O.P. No. 734 of 1991 on the file of the learned XII Judges, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The respondent herein filed the petition under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 for eviction of the petitioner herein for own use.

3. The precise case of the respondent herein is as follows :-

The respondent is the landlord, that the petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of the ground floor in AB Block No. 3, Plot No. 4896, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madras 600 040, roughtly measuring about 2, 200 sq.

feet, that the building is let out for the purpose of carrying on banking business non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 10, 134/- and the rent is payable according to English calendar month; that the lease was reduced into writing but not registered; and that the period of lease was expired on 31-8-1990. The request of the petitioner herein, for extension of lease was duly rejected by the respondent on the ground that she requires the builing for own use and that the respondent is doing the business of manufacture of electrical light fittings and accessories in Premises No. 21 G. Industrial Estate, Madras 600 058, along with her partner. Apart from that, they were also doing wholesale and retail trade of the manufactured goods, which is carried on in the premises No Y 64 Annanagar, Madras 600 040, in a rented premises.

4. It is also the further case of the respondent herein that both the manufacturing unit as well as the trading unit are housed in the premises, which do not belong to her that she requires the premises for her own use, and she is carrying on the business in a rented premises. Therefore, the respondent issued a notice on 11-8-1990 to the petitioner, requesting them to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition mentioned premises. The petitioner did not quit and deliver vacant possession. Hence the petition under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

5. The said application has been resisted by the petitioner herein on the ground that the respondent lacks bona fide in her requirement and the real reason for filing the petition is that the respondent has made a steep rise in the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 9/- per sq. feet, which has been rejected by the petitioner. The present petition has been filed with a motive to evict the petitioner herein, that she needs the premises for her own occupation has no basis and it is a tactics for eviction , that the petitioner herein is a Banking Institution and they are regularly paying the rent to the respondent and that there was a clear understanding between the parties; that the petitioner may be allowed to continue at least for 15 years and that the petitioner's business would be affected if the business place is often changed from place to place. The petition for eviction is only to enhance the rent and to cause hardship and loss to the petitioner.

6. On behalf of the respondent herein, her husband, the power of Attorney holder, was examined as P.W. 1 and her son was examined as P.W. 2 and as many as 27 documents have been marked so as to prove the bona fide requirements of the business. On behalf of the petitioner herein, the Chief Manager was examined as R.W. 1. No document has been marked on the side of the petitioner.

7. The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration all the averment; contained in the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the petition. The said order has been taken on appeal before the Appellate Authority by the respondent herein. The Appellate Authority has reversed the findings to the effect that the requirement of the respondent h