Landlord has to prove his requirement of carrying business.

This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14-4-1988 in R.C.A. No. 57 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), reversing the order dated 4-9-1986 in R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thirumangalam on an application under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act filed by the respondent herein.

2. The respondent-landlord filed R.C. O.P. No. 5 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thirumangalam, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act for eviction of the petitioners herein. The case of the landlord is that the premises bearing Door No. 19, Bazaar Street, Peraiyur Village, Thirumangalam Taluk is a non-residential one, that the respondent herein purchased the property from his predecessor for the purpose of starting a jewellery shop and money-lending business at that building, that the respondent herein did not own or possess any other buildings of his own, that he made all arrangements to start the business and as such he instituted the proceedings under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act for eviction of the revision petitioners herein.

3. The revision petitioners resisted the petition of the landlord stating that they became tenants under the predecessor-in-title of the landlord on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/-. They would state that the landlord had not taken any step whatsoever for commencing a jewellery shop and moneylending business, that the landlord owned other buildings in East Street, Bazaar Street and Church Street, that those buildings became vacant and that the landlord had not chosen to occupy the said buildings.

4. The learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord insofar as his requirement of the demised premises for his business is concerned, and that there is no satisfactory evidence to establish that the landlord did not own any other house. However, in the absence of any evidence on the part of the tenants that the landlord owned any other building, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord did not own any other house. He further held that as it was the case of the landlord that he could start the business only after getting possession of the demised buildings, it was very clear that the landlord was not carrying on any business on the date of the filing of the petition for eviction under the Act, that there was no evidence that the landlord took steps for the purpose of commencing the business, and that the landlord did not make any application to the authorities concerned that he intended to carry on the jewellery business in the demised premises. According to the learned Rent Controller, there was no provision in the Gold Control Act that the premises in which the jewellery shop was intended to be carried on must be kept vacant on the date of the filing of the application for licence. Considering all the materials on record, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had not overtaken any steps for the purpose of obtaining a licence under the Gold Control Act in order to carry on the jewellery shop. Ultimately, he held that the requirement of the demised premises by the landlord was not established by him. With the result, he dismissed the petition for eviction, by order dated 4-9-1986.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord filed an appeal, R.C.A. No. 57 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai the appellate authority under the Act. The appellate authority observed that though our High Court laid down that at the time when the landlord required the nonresidential premises for the purpose of carrying on his business, he should establish that he had been carrying on business on the date when the petition for eviction on that gro