Determination of lease in terms of Transfer of Property Act is unnecessary.

This civil revision petition has been directed against the order and decree, dated 17. 98 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in R.C.A.No.442 of 1995, confirming the order of eviction dated 4. 1995 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (House Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P.No.1548 of 1993 on his file.

2. Theshort facts are:

The respondent/landlord instituted the petition for eviction under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) on the ground that he is the owner of the shop at No,2/22, Raja Annamalai Road, Madras-84 and that the revision petitioner is the tenant of the shop on a monthly rent of Rs.625 and he is carrying on electrical goods business. The respondent was a partner along with his father in Imitation Jewellery business and having acquired considerable experience, he wanted to set up a separate business of his own and for that purpose, he required the premises in the occupation of the revision petitioner. He had made all preparations and was only waiting for vacant possession of the premises, He issued a notice dated 2. 1991 requiring vacant possession. The respondent thought it would take some time to get vacant possession of the shop through court proceedings and, therefore, set up business at Coimbatore under the name and style “Traditions Jewellery” at No.106/38, Big Bell, D.B.Road, Coimbatore. However, the climate at Coimbatore was found to be not suitable to him and his wife. Hence, he closed the business at Coimbatore and shifted it to Madras. Another notice, dated 4. 1993 was issued requiring the revision petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession for the own business of the respondent and as the same was not complied with, he filed the petition for eviction.

3. The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the petition stating the requirement of the shop for the own business of the respondent/landlord is not genuine land bona fide. The allegation that the climatic condition at Coimbatore is not suitable to the respondent and his wife is only a ruse to get vacant possession and the respondent is carrying on business at Coimbatore even now. The alleged notices have not been addressed to the revision petitioner but to one Gopal Bai and, therefore, are not valid. The respondent is intending to sell the shop at a fancy price after getting vacant possession and the allegation that he requires the shop for starting his own business is not true.

4. TheX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai who enquired into the petition, on a consideration of the evidence placed before him, reached the conclusion that the requirement of the shop for the own buildings of the respondent/landlord is genuine and bona fide and, therefore, allowed the petition and ordered eviction,

5. Aggrieved with the said order of eviction, the revision petitioner filed R.C.A.No.442 of 1995. The VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai who heard the appeal, for the reasons stated by him in his order dated 17. 1998 concurred with the reasoning of the trial court, confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the appeal, which is being challenged in this revision petition.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted even though both the courts below concurrently found the requirement of the respondent/landlord is reasonable and bona fide, the said conclusion is manifestly wrong as both the courts have failed to appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective, due to which, miscarriage of justice had occurred. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the main legal requirement as per Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is the landlord or any member of his family shall be carrying on business on the date on which the petition was filed for eviction under the said section. Sec.10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act