ORDER: The tenant, who suffered an eviction order concurrently, is the revision petitioner.

2. The respondent herein is the owner of the premises bearing door No.64, Kilpauk Garden Colony, measuring an extent of 177.66 sq.ft., which is in the occupation of the revision petitioner, as tenant, where he is carrying on a business, under the name and style of Koti Stores. The rent agreed for the premises is Rs.1,000 and as pleaded in paragraph-5 of the petition, the landlord had also received a sum of Rs.25,000 as advance, contravening the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act. The landlord’s son is one A.S. Govindaraj alias Anand. It seems after the death of his wife, Mr. Govindaraj migrated from Pondicherry to Madras, winding up his business, which he was carrying on, at Pondicherry. According to the petitioner, his son desires to continue the same business, since he had the experience of 4 1/2 years. In this view, the petitioner/landlord filed R.C.O.P., for the eviction of the tenant, on the ground, that his son requires the premises, for his business establishment, which is bona fide.

3. The tenant reiterating the history of his possession, including a residential portion, which he gave up, at later point of time, opposed the application, that the petitioner is occupying a portion of the building and therefore, if at all, the petition ought to have been filed only for additional accommodation and not under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The further contention of the tenant is that, in case of his eviction, the hardship which is going to suffer, will outweigh the advantage enjoyed by the landlord. It is further contended by the tenant, that the petitioner’s son had no intention, to start any business, in his name and in fact, he is not carrying on any business also.

4. Despite the objection and creating doubt about bona fide, the Rent Controller unable to entertain any mala fide, whereas he found much bona fide in the claim of the petitioner, for personal occupation, which resulted an order of eviction on 17.4.2001, which was under challenge before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.474 of 2001.

5. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, more or less reproducing the orders of the Rent Controller, without any application of mind, confirmed the eviction order, which is under challenge in this revision.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Sampath and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. G. Nagarajan.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits, that the ingredients required under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, are not at all made out by the landlord and therefore, the eviction ordered by the Courts below, is incorrect and went to the extent of saying, that the findings are perverse. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that there is not even a plea in the petition, attracting the ingredients of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, which was not properly appreciated by the Courts below, requiring interference by this Court, more or less compulsorily.

8. While opposing the above arguments, the learned counsel for the landlord submits, that all the ingredients required for an eviction, under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, are fully made out in this case, which were properly considered by the Courts below and because of this reason, the revision deserves unacceptance, confirming the findings of the Courts below.

9. The tenancy is not in dispute. The building was let out for non-residential purpose. Admittedly, there is a residential portion, where the petitioner and his son are residing. In view of the fact, that the building, which is in the occupation of the tenant is a non-residential portion, an attempt is made to say, that the petition under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, is not at all maintainable. If at all, the landlord ought to have filed a petition under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act. The landlord is not seeking the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document