ORDER: The landlords/petitioners in R.C.O.P.No.1212 of 1996 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, though obtained an order of eviction against the tenants, unable to sustain the same, when the same was challenged before the appellate authority and the result is the dismissal of the application, which is challenged in this revision.

2. The revision petitioners are the owners of a non residential premises bearing Door No.262, Purasawalkam High Court, Madras, about 541 sq.ft., comprised in R.S.No.602/2, 603/2 part, new R.S.No.602/3, 602/12. The respondents are in occupation of the same, as tenants, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2,200. The third petitioner is carrying on business in sarees in the name and style of Sanjay Sarees Centre in a rental shop at premises No.21, Iyyah Mudali Street, Chindadripet, Madras-2, on a monthly rent of Rs.550. The third petitioner felt it very convenient, to carry on his business, in the rented premises, which is in a narrow street. Therefore, he decided and intended to shift his business, from the rented premises to the premises, owned by the petitioners, since this premises will be suitable for textile business, as it is situated in the main Purasawalkam High Road, a busy marketing area, known for textile business. In this view, when they asked the tenants, the tenants refused to vacate the premises and therefore, this petition is filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for the purpose of personal occupation, by the third petitioner, in order to carry on his business, in the premises.

3. The respondents admitting the tenancy would contend, that the premises at No.21, Iyyah Mudali Street are owned by some of the petitioners, that in view of this fact, the petitioners own the premises, in which one of the petitioners is carrying on business, they are not entitled to invoke the provisions of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) and that the requirement of the petitioners, for carrying on the alleged business, in the petition mentioned property, is not bona fide.

4. On the above averments, parties went on trial before the Rent Controller, where the third petitioner has been examined as P.W.1, while the second petitioner has been examined as P.W.2. In support of the above oral testimony, 15 documents were exhibited, which are attempted to be eclipsed by the examination of the first respondent, producing two documents. The learned Rent controller upon consideration, had come to an irresistible conclusion, that the third petitioner is carrying on his business in a rented premises at door No.21, Iyyah Mudali Street, Chintadripet, Chennai-2 and that the requirements of the petitioners to shift the business from the rented premises to the own premises is bona fide. On the above conclusion, he allowed the application, ordering eviction on 21.2.2000, which was under challenge in R.C.A.No.419 of 2000, before the Appellate Authority.

5. The appellate authority, upon perusing the materials, unable to subscribe his view to the conclusion of the Rent Controller, whereas he differed on material points. Ultimately, the R.C.A. came to be allowed on 7.12.2001, setting aside the order of eviction, thereby ordering to dismiss the Rent Control Application itself, which is under challenge in this revision.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nagu Sah and the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.V.S. Subramaniyam.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the petitioners have made out a case, satisfying the requirements of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, which was accepted by the Rent Controller and unfortunately, on misconception, the same was set aside by the appellate authority, requiring interference by this Court, under the revisional jurisdiction. Opposing this argument, the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants submits, that the landlords are owning a non-residential building of their own within this city and if they desire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document