Requirement of landlady held bonafide.

T.N. Singaravelu, J.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent landlady filed the petition for eviction in respect of a non-residential building under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) on the ground of requirement for the occupation of her husband. The tenant contended that the requirement is not bona fide, and that in any event, the landlady is not entitled to file a petition before the expiry of the lease period agreed to between the parties. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the tenant and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction. Hence the revision by the tenant.

2. The premises in question is a multi-storeyed building consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor at North Beach Road near the Madras Harbour. The tenant is M/s. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co., Ltd. The building in question originally belonged to South India Flour Mills Ltd., Madras through whom the tenant was inducted into possession. The landlady, namely, the revision petitioner herein, purchased the building on 6th April 1979, and thereafter called upon the tenant to vacate the premises on the ground of requirement for the purpose of business of her husband who is a businessman and an exporter at Singapore. These facts are not disputed.

3. The first point to be considered is, whether the requirement of the premises by the landlady for the purpose of running the business by her husband is bona fide. It is common ground that the landlady's husband is a citizen of Singapore doing export and import business at Singapore. According to the landlady the demised building at Madras is required for the purpose of using it as a go-down as well as office for the business run and carried on by her husband at Singapore. The landlady's husband has given evidence as P.W.1 and has stated that he wants to open up an office at Madras in the leasehold premises so that it will be convenient for him for the purpose of his business. It was elicited from him that though he and his father have been doing export and import business at Singapore from 1963, onwards, they have not chosen to set up any office at Madras till now. In short, there is no evidence to show that the landlady's husband is carrying on any business at Madras on the date of the petition. There is also no evidence to show that they have made any preparations for setting up an office or godown at Madras. That apart, it was elicited from P.W.1 that the landlady filed eviction petitions against the tenants in the first and second floors, but unceremoniously withdrew the same after some arrangement with them. The tenant herein is in occupation of the ground floor. It was found by the Rent Controller that the conduct of the landlady in withdrawing the eviction proceedings against the tenants of the first and second floors indicates that the requirement is not bona fide. Further, since the tenants in the first and second floors have agreed to vacate, P.W. 1 can easily be accommodated in those premises. Placing reliance on these facts, the Rent Controller rejected the case of the landlady and held that the requirement is neither trite nor bona fide. It was also pointed out that in the notice, Exhibit R-4, the landlady asked the tenant to vacate stating that the ground floor will easily fetch a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000 at the current market rate, and that if the tenant does not vacate, she will take action and recover damages at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month. This is yet another circumstance to show that the eviction petition is motivated and that her only object is to get a fat rent from the tenant. On this evidence, the finding of the Rent Controller is justified. However, the Appellate Authority has held that there is nothing artificial in a Singapore merchant engaged in export and import business having an office at Madras near the Harbour. In this view, the Appellate Authority found that the requirement was b