Requirement of landlord for eviction of tenant not bonafide.

This civil revision petition is filed by the landlord in rent control proceedings the judgment of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.1196 of 1983, on the file of the Small Causes (IV Judge), Madras, confirming the order of the Rent Controller, R.C.O.P.No.3387 of 1982.

2. Brief facts are the following: The petitioner is the owner of No.70, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, is now in dispute. In said premises, apart from the respondent, there are other tenants. The respondent paying a monthly rent of Rs.300 excluding electric charges. The relevant averments in the petition for read as follows: “ The petitioner is carrying on business in Javuli and other business under the name and of ‘ Mahadeva Iyer and Sons ’ at No.12, Big Bazaar Street, Koothanallur Post, Thanjavur District. The business is flourishing well. The petitioner has decided to open a branch Madras and is making arrangements for the same. ... ... ... The petitioner does not own any other building except the building in the occupation respondent and situated in No.70, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Madras-24, which occupation of the respondent. The petitioner requires the premises in his occupation respondent for the purpose of the business he is carrying on.”

3. The respondent resisted the eviction petition contending inter alia as follows: “ The respondent again submits that admittedly the petitioner is not carrying on business the City of Madras either in any rented building or in any other building not belonging petitioner. He only intends to open a Branch at Madras. Such a claim will not fall within application of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. ... ... ... The landlord is not entitled to file a petition for eviction against the tenant stating that a business somewhere in the North or South of India and, therefore, he wants to Branch in all cities available in India or in Tamil Nadu. Such a claim is opposed to the provisions of the Act especially requirement contained in Sec.10(a)(3)(iii) of the Act. ... ... ... The oblique motive of the petitioner is to get enhanced rent of Rs.1,000 per month advance rent of Rs.10,000 free of interest which was refused by the respondent, as totally unbelievable. Therefore, the false petition is filed by the petitioner pointing most frivolous and false and unsustainable claims.”

4. Before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner ’ s son was examined as P.W.I and 1 to P-5 were also marked. On the side of the respondent, one of the partners was as R.W.1. Exs.R-l and R-2 were also marked on the respondent’s side.

5. The learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of the pleadings, evidence both documentary and the arguments of the counsel on both sides, found that none of the to P-5 indicates that the petitioner has made any preparation to start a branch business Madras, that the petitioner has not made any arrangement for opening a branch Madras, that though there is no written demand of enhanced rent, the fact that the other tenants have been increased recently whereas the respondent is paying the old rent for the past several years which shows that the petitioner’s real intention somehow to evict the respondent and let out the premises for higher rent, and requirement of the petitioner in respect of the premises for starting his branch office textile business is not bona fide. On those findings, the learned Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the dismissal of the eviction petition R.C.A.No.1195 of 1983.

7. The appellate authority, on a re-appreciation of the evidence and after hearing the on both sides, also held that no preparation has been made and that it is only at the intention to start a branch at Madras and that, therefore, the petition under Sec.10(3) (iii) of the Act is not maintainable in view of the decision in M/s.Gillanders Arbuthnot Ltd. v. M/s. V.I.Bahdrunissa, 95 L.W. 144, that the appellant before it was very particular have enhancement of rent for the portion