Allegation of sub-letting not sustainable

R. Sengottuvelan, J.

1. This civil revision petition is filed by the tenant occupying Door No. 38, Ghitrakkara Street, Madurai, a non-residential premise?, against whom an order of eviction is passed by the appellate authority and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in G.M.A No. 288 of 1978, Originally the landlady, the respondent herein, who is the owner of the above-said premises filed an application in R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk for evicting the tenant on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and on the ground that the landlady requires the premises for her own business under Section 10(3)(a)(iii). The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence let in by both the sides found against the landlady on the above-said both the grounds and dismissed the rent control petition. As against the order of dismissal the landlady filed C.M.A. No. 288 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the appellate authority and the Principal Subordinate Judge and the learned Appellate authority after considering the material on record confirmed the order of the Rent Controller regarding the claim for eviction on the ground that the landlady requires the premises for her own use and reversed the finding of the Rent Controller in respect of the claim for eviction on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises and ordered eviction of the tenant. This civil revision petition is filed by the tenant against the order of eviction passed by the appellate authority on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the building.

2. Since the landlady prayed for eviction on both the grounds viz., the requirement of the premises for her own use and on the ground the tenant had sub-let the premises and eviction was ordered only on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises, the landlady also challenged the finding of the appellate authority regarding the rejection of her claim for eviction on the ground that she requires the premises for her own us?. Inasmuch as the claim of the landlady for eviction on the ground that she requires the building for her own business was negatived by the appellate authority and eviction was ordered en the other ground viz., sub-letting, the landlady could not have filed an appeal against the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority with regard to the claim for eviction on the ground that she requires the premises for her own use. Hence the landlady is entitled to press her claim for eviction on the ground that she requites the premises for her own use and to show that the order of the appellate authority in this respect cannot be sustained. The landlady has such a right in this civil revision petition is laid down by a decision of a single judge of this Court reported in K. Venkata-ramani v. S. Afavamuthan and Ors. Before considering the two questions that arise for decision in this revision viz., whether the landlady is entitled to an order of eviction on the ground of subletting an' on the ground that she requires the premises for her own business certain facts will have to be stated.

3. The tenant took on lease the premises bearing Door No. 38, Chitrakkara Street, Madurai for non-residential purpose and has been conducting business in jaggery for the past many years. The tenancy is as per Tamil calendar month and the monthly rent is Rs. 350 payable on or before 10th of the next succeeding Tamil month. The landlady is also the owner of the premises bearing door No. 188 East Masi Street, Madurai and the case of the landlady is that she is conducting business in palmyrah jaggery in partnership with her husband and her sons, in that prepemises. The specific case of the landlady before the Rent Controller was that she had been doing business in chillies in the premises bearing Door