Landlord need not take up a rented premises and then demand eviction of tenant.

Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1998 on the file of Rent Controller at Erode is the revision petitioner. Parties herein will be referred as ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’.

2. Landlord filed eviction petition against tenant on the ground that scheduled building is required for bona fide own occupation of his son T.S.Nataraj, who is running a partnership business with one Jayaraman under the name and style “Integrity Enterprises” at door No.209, Vaibhav Complex, 1569,Trichy Road,Coimbatore and they are dealers in rigid P.V.C. pipes, electrical and domestic hardwares, printing chemicals, paper cartons and building materials. He is having godowns in Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore and also a branch at Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore. It is stated that the firm “Integrity Enterprises” has been appointed as one of the authorised dealers to market and promote the products like Trubore Brand Rigid P.V.C. pipes, Casings and Screens in Coimbatore, Dharmapuri, Erode, Nilgiris and Salem Districts by M/s.Polytrusions Private Limited, Chennai. It is also alleged that landlords son Nataraj is a shareholder in Coimbatore Capital Market Services Private Limited, which entitles M/s.Ganesh Investments to trade in National Stock Exchange. Nataraj is a partner in M/s.Ganesh Investments which carries business in shares, debentures, stocks, bonds etc. and acting as brokers in buying and selling the same. It is said that petitioners son bona fidely require schedule premises to open a branch to carry on the dealership business of M/s.Polytrusions Private Limited and also the Stock Exchange business which he is already carrying on. It is said that they are not having any other non-residential building of their own within the municipal limits of Erode for carrying the said businesses.

3. Stating above reasons demand was made to the tenant to vacate the premises and finally a notice was issued on 12. 1997 for which a reply was sent on 312. 1997. Tenant has refused to vacate the premises. Averments in the reply notice were denied by the landlord. It is further said that merely because petitioners son is residing in Coimbatore and petitioner is residing in Chennai, it cannot be said that the claim is not bona fide. Landlord also admitted that before institution of proceedings, tenant had moved the Civil Court in O.S.No.1066 of 1995 to restrain the landlord by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from forcibly dispossessing him. Landlord stated that he has no intention of taking law into his own hands and that is why he did not even prefer appeal against the decision. For the above reasons landlord wanted eviction of tenant from the scheduled premises.

4. In the detailed counter statement filed by the tenant he admitted the rental arrangement and also the rate of rent. He denied that landlords son is a partner in Integrity Enterprises and he also denied the fact that the said firm has been the dealers of M/s.Polytrusions Private Limited, Chennai. He also denied the allegation that landlords son is a shareholder in M/s.Ganesh Investments. According to tenant, the claim of landlord is not bona fide. Main reason for taking such a contention is landlord is residing at Madras and son is permanently settled in Coimbatore and therefore they do not require scheduled premises at Erode. Even if they want to occupy the non-residential premises, they can occupy the underground floor underneath scheduled premises and the same is lying vacant. He also said that landlords son is owning non-residential premises just opposite to scheduled premises and for that reason also eviction petition is not maintainable. According to him, he was constrained to file O.S.No.1066 of 1995 for permanent prohibitory injunction since landlord tried to evict him forcibly. Only to wreck vengeance for having obtained injunction by tenant, present petition is filed. He prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.

5. On the basis of above pleadings, parties went on trial. Exs.P-1 to P-18 were m