JUDGMENT: A petition for eviction was originally filed under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and subsequently amended under Sec.10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act.

2. The respondent/ landlady contended that she is the owner of the premises at No.72. Sri Theyagaraja Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 and the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner carrying on tailoring business in the name and style of M/s.Radiant Tailors in shop No.4, at No.72, Sir Theyagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai on a monthly rent of Rs.900 for non-residential purpose and the rental amount is paid according to English calendar month. According to the landlady, she requires the portion under the occupation of the respondent for providing a car shed to park a Maruti car and a Scooter belonging to her husband and also another scooter belonging to her son. According to the landlady, the said vehicles are now parked at the platform in front of the premises and the petitioner’s husband and son were penalised by the Traffic police authorities for unlawful parking of the vehicle. The portion occupied by the respondent was situated in the petition premises facing the road side and hence it was suitable for the petitioner to convert the same as a car shed for parking the vehicles belonging to her husband and son. Therefore, she requires the premises bona fide by way of additional accommodation to provide a car shed for parking the vehicles. A legal notice was sent to the respondent on 20.8.1990 informing about the bona fide requirement to use the portion under his occupation as a car shed for their own family and called upon the respondent to quit and deliver vacant possession of the shop. The respondent chose to send and untenable reply through his counsel on 27.8.1990 refusing to vacate the premises. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. In the counter filed by the respondent, the tenancy and the monthly rent of Rs.900 were admitted but the claim of the landlady for providing a car shed was disputed. The requirement was not bona fide and was the result of a concocted story lacking bona fide. It was astonishing to note that in a non-residential portion which is fetching a sum of Rs.900 per month together with a sum of Rs.50,000 received as rental advance and the premises was situate in a busy locality is being required by the petitioner for car parking only. This alone would prove the mala fide intention of the petitioner to evict the tenant some how or the other. The landlady had demanded exorbitant rent, which the tenant refused to pay. It is only on account of this reason, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ landlady. It is further stated that in the ground floor, there was enough space in which five cars could be parked at a stretch. Even otherwise, there is another shop which is more ideal since the same was attached with the residential portion occupied by the petitioner. The claim of the landlady was not maintainable in law. The tenant had established his business of tailoring shop after very great struggle and also had paid huge amount for the purpose of securing business and in fact a sum of Rs.50,000 was paid as advance without any interest. Therefore, vacating the premises would cause such inconvenience and hardship to the tenant/ respondent which will outweigh the hardship of the petitioner/ landlady. It is further stated that the claim that family members of the landlady were being penalised by the police authorities for unlawful parking is a self serving statement. There is no question of the petitioner being penalised by the traffic police authorities. As there was no bona fides in the demand made by the landlady, the petition was not maintainable.

4. Both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority allowed the petition for eviction holding that the landlady had made out a case for accommodation for parking the car belonging to their family as provided under Sec.10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. He

Click Here to Read the rest of this document