Ground "Carrying on business" proved by landlady.

The tenant is the petitioner. The petition for eviction was filed under Secs.l0(2)(ii)(b), 10 (2)(iii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. Ultimately, the only one ground that arises for consideration in this revision is the eviction sought for under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

2 The respondent here in is the owner of the entire premises at No.7, Thayar Sahib Road, Mount Road, Madras-2 and the petitioner herein is the tenant under the landlady is respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.200. According to the landlady, though the petition premises was let out to the tenant for the purpose of his residence, the tenant is using the same for non-residential purpose. According to the landlady, the tenant installed in the petition premises a commercial banking even deliberately and thereby caused damage to the ceiling of the building. The landlady is residing at premises No.34, Veerasami Pillai Street, Egmore, Madras-8, which is a rented premises. The landlady is also carrying on a business under the name and style of Asian Enterprices in the 2nd Floor of premise old No.200/210, Triplicane High Road and present D.No.75, Quide Millath Salai, Madras-5 on a monthly rent of Rs.650. She vacated the said premises and is now carrying on the said business at No.36, Veerasami Street, Madias- 8. Therefore, the landlady requires the petition premises in the occupation of the tenant bona fide for her own use and occupation. The landlady further states that she is not having any other non-residential premises of her own in the City of Madras. Hence the petition.

3.. In the counter, the tenant states as under: The back portion of the petition premises was let out by the original owner of the petition premises for non-residential purposes to erect a even to make bread, biscuits, cakes etc., and to carrying on business in such products as early as January, 1970. The respondent has put up a superstructure adjacent to the bakery with the permission of the original owner, to prepare the bakery products. The tenant has also obtained necessary license from the Corporation of Madras for conducting the business in bakery. The landlady never used to repair the petition premises. The tenant used carry on the repairs periodically. It is not correct to state that the tenant caused damage to the building and committed act of waste. The requirement of the petition premises by the landlady is not bona fide. The landlady cannot ask for the petition premises both for non-residential and residential purposes. The landlady know that the back portion of the petition premises was let out to the tenants for the non-residential purpose and the tenant is using the same for the said purpose from January, 1970 onwards. She never raised any objection prior to the issue of notice dated 24. 1988. The landlady has already acquiesced in the use of the said portion for non-residential purpose by the tenant for the last 18 years. The landlady filed petition for eviction against the tenant several years back and she was not successful. The front portion of the premises measuringabout300sq.ft. is lying vacant since its roof fell down sometime back. If the landlady’s requirement is bona fide, she can put up a roof over the said front portion and use it for the business purpose. It was therefore pleaded that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlady in requiring the petition premises under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

4. One Abdul Basith Khan was examined as P.W.1 and the tenant examined himself as P.W.1. The landlady filed 57 documents, the tenant filed 12 documents. Considering the facts and circumstances in this case, the learned Rent Controller held that the requirement of the landlady is bona fide under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and accordingly eviction was ordered. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. I