Maintainability of eviction petition filed by landlord.

R. Sengottuvelan, J.

1. The civil revision petitioner before this Court is a landlord in respect of non-residential building bearing Door No. 18, Main Road, Sattur, Ramanathapuram District. The respondent herein had been a tenant in the said building, under the civil revision petitioner, on a monthly rent of Rs. 135 and the building is being occupied by the Co-optex Sales Emporium. The civil revision petitioner filed an application in H.R.C.C. No. 5 of 1978 on the file of the Rent Controller, Sattur for eviction of the respondent herein, on the ground that he required the premises for his own hotel business. The case of the civil revision petitioner before the House Rent Controller is that himself and his son had been running a hotel business in a rented building bearing Door No. 255, Trunk Road, Satturv belonging to Krishnaswamy Naicker, son of Guruswami Naicker. The said Krishnaswamy Naicker had been pressing the tenant, the civil revision petitioner herein to vacate the aforesaid building. He also started legal proceedings and under a compromise entered into between the said Krishnaswamy Naicker and the civil revision petitioner herein under a document dated 13th March, 1977, the civil revision petitioner herein was bound to vacate the building and he accordingly vacated the premises as per the possession receipt Exhibit A-4. The civil revision petitioner had been conducting the hotel business for the past more than 50 years and he cannot afford to close down his business. He has no other non-residential building of his own. Hence his requirement is genuine and is bona fide. The civil revision petitioner sent a notice to the respondent on 5th December, 1977, marked as Exhibit A-5, terminating the tenancy with the last day of December, 1977, and calling upon him to deliver vacant possession to the civil revision petitioner. The respondent did not comply with the notice and sent a reply raising false allegations.

2. The case of the respondent, the tenant in respect of the petition mentioned premises, before the House Rent Controller is that the petition is not in proper form and the material particulars required under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and the Rules are not furnished. The lease was entered into on 10th January, 1972, and the possession was handed over to the Junior Marketing Officer, Regional Office, Madurai, and hence the Special Officer, Tamil Nadu I Iandloom Weavers' Society, Madras is not a tenant under the civil revision petitioner. After a lapse of two years from the commencement of the tenancy, the civil revision petitioner on 25th January, 1974, marked as Exhibit R-6 demanded an enhanced rent of Rs. 200 per month to which the Junior Marketing Officer replied that it is not possible to pay any enhanced rent. Subsequently also the civil revision petitioner sent letters demanding enhanced rent. On 23rd September, 1977, the civil revision petitioner sent another letter marked as Exhibit B-17 to the Marketing Officer, Madurai, demanding an enhanced rent of Rs. 250. But strange enough the civil revision petitioner had sent a lawyer's notice on 5th December 1977, marked as Exhibit A-5 stating that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation. The respondent herein sent a reply on 28th December, 1977, marked as Exhibit A-7. It is also the case of the respondent herein before the House Rent Controller that the petition mentioned building is not suitable for running the hotel business since there is no kitchen, water-supply and other necessary amenities, which are necessary for running the hotel business and the civil revision petitioner owns other buildings also and hence the requirement of the building by the landlord is not bore fide.

3. The learned Rent Controller on a consideration of the evidence in the case came to the conclusion that the landlord made out a case and allowed the application for reviction. As against the said order, the tenant, respondent herein filed an a