ORDER: The revision petition is filed by the landlady represented by power of attorney agent challenging the fair and decretal orders in R.C.A.No.1 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Chengalpattu reversing the fair and decretal orders passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Madurantakam in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1993.

2. The petition under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) was laid for eviction of the tenant/respondent from the petition premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for carrying on the business of the grandson of the landlady. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the same is not bona fide. The learned Rent Controller having analysed the evidence adduced on either side and after considering the arguments held that the claim made by the landlady is bona fide. The respondent preferred the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the learned Subordinate Judge having analysed the evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides allowed the appeal holding that the claim of the landlady is not bona fide. Hence, the revision.

3. The petition premises in door No.23-C at G.S.T.Road, Madurantakam was let out by the landlady to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000 for non-residential purpose. The power of attorney agent who is the son of the landlady filed the petition as he is managing the petition premises on behalf of the landlady. Both of them are residing on the eastern wing of the premises in door No.5 and are doing retail business in the western portion of the same building. According to the landlady, her grandson who has been given wholesale agency in respect of the consumer products of number of leading industrial houses has been accommodated to run the agency business in a cramped room between the said shop and the house. Since there is crunch of space for running the agency business of her grandson, the landlady through her power of attorney agent requested the respondent to vacate the premises, but the respondent has failed to vacate the premises.

4. The contentions of the petitioner/power of attorney agent of the landlady may be stated briefly as follows: Since the grandson of the landlady has to store the goods and exhibit the products through visible show room as per the terms and conditions imposed by the company people who supplied goods, he requires the petition premises. Moreover, for loading and unloading the goods, the vehicles have to be used and therefore, the parking space in front of the petition premises is also essential. Hence, the requirement of the landlady is a bona fide one.

5. The tenant/respondent raised the following contentions in the counter. It is true that the respondent is the tenant of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000. The allegation regarding the wholesale agency for consumer products taken by the grandson of the landlady is denied. The petitioner has been demanding higher rent from 1991 onwards at Rs.1,800 per month and even though the respondent agreed to pay the said rent, the continuance of the agreement for further period of 5 years was insisted to which the petitioner agreed to give only for two years. Since the continuance of the rental agreement was not finalised, the respondent has not issued any reply for the notice given by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner’s claim is not bona fide. The respondent is running the Co-optex, (i.e.) handloom textile goods in the petition premises for the past 15 years. Since the organisation is service oriented, inasmuch as the public are very familiar with the retail show room of the respondent, irreparable loss and hardship will be caused to the respondent if eviction is ordered.

6. In the above circumstances, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document