Orde of eviction of tenant passed by Appellate Court set aside in revision.

This revision is directed against the order passed in R.C.ANo.242 of 1986, turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.472 of 1981. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Act petition for eviction it is stated asunder: The petition premises is situate at No.11 Chitrai Street, Madurai. The tenant is a partnership firm represented by one of its SP.P.S.Shanmugham Chettiar. The tenant is conducting a medical shop in the premises, on a monthly rent of Rs.825. The owner of the petition premises is partnership firm represented by one of its partners. The landlord is carrying on business glass and enamel wares and as general merchants in 90-92, East Avanimoola Madurai. The petition premises is situate just behind the premises at door Nos.90 to 92, Avanimoola Street. The landlord is having its godowns in a rented premises at No.8, Nappalaya Street, Madurai and in two other rented premises at Lakshminarayanapuram Agraharam, Madurai to store its goods. The owner of the premises at door No.8, Nappalaya Street, Madurai filed eviction proceedings against the landlord, herein obtained an order of eviction. Therefore, the landlord herein was compelled to surrender possession of premises at No.8, Mela Nappalaya Street, Madurai to its owner. The other godowns which are rented premises at Lakshminarayanapuram Agraharam, Madurai away from the place of business conducted by the landlord. The landlord desires to locate godown very near to its business place so as to prevent breakage of glasswares in from the godown to the shop premises. Further according to the landlord, if the godown near to the shop premises it will be easy for it to handle the goods by minimizing damages. With this bona fide desire in view, the landlord herein issued a notice petitioner herein on 7.4.1981 calling upon the tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession. The tenant sent a reply dated 11.4.1981 setting forth its defence.

2. In the counter filed by the tenant, it is stated as under: The tenant is in occupation petition premises for the past many years. Originally, the rent was Rs.450 and the same increased periodically and at present the rent is Rs.825 p.m. It is true that the owner premises at No.8, Mela Nappalaya Street, obtained an order of eviction against the herein. The landlord herein is also in occupation of the other two rented premises Lakshminarayanapuram Agraharam. This would go to show that originally the landlord not want to utilise the petition premises as godown and therefore it took on rent premises at Lakshminarayanapuram Agraharam for storing their goods. Hence, from beginning the respondent does not want to utilise the petition premises as godown, since built for the purpose of running a shop. The petition premises is not fit for using the godown, only to cause hardship to the petitioner herein and to enhance the rent, the filed the present eviction petition. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no bona the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of One Kadhar Ibrahim was examined as P.W.1 and one Swaminathan was examined as The landlord filed 4 documents. No document was filed on behalf of the tenant. Considering the facts arising in this case, the rent controller came to the conclusion that there is no fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) the Act. Accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) the Act and accordingly the appellate authority reversed the order passed by the Controller, allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. It is against this order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenant.

3.