Lack of bonafide on part of landlord inferred.

The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed the petition for eviction against the tenant for owner’s occupation under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control ) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The tenant is in occupation of the godown in premises No.36, Subramani Mudali Street, Madras -600 079, belonging to the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs.750. The premises is let out for non-residential purpose. According to the landlords they are carrying on business in oil cake in a rented premises at door No.3, Thatha Muthiappan Street, Madras-1 as a wholesale dealer under the name and style of ‘Arvind Traders’. According to the landlords they are not in possession of any other non-residential premises of their own in the city of Madras. Therefore the landlords required the petition premises bona fide for conducting their business, which he is now carrying on in a rented premises. The tenant filed a counter stating as under.

2. It is true that the tenant is in occupation of a portion of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.750. Originally the petition premises belonged to one Jayaraman. He was residing in the first floor. The rain water from the upstair portion has got to be drained through the portion under the occupation of the tenant. There was stagnation of drain water in the portion occupied by the tenant. Hence a request was made by the tenant to the landlord to clear the drain water. Aggrieved over this, the said Jayaraman filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent in R.C.O.P. No.2593 of 1983. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings Jayaraman Doss died. The petitioners herein who are brothers claiming to be the legal heirs of Jayaram Doss, conducted the said eviction proceedings. Thereafter, the eviction petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over that they now came forward with the present petition for eviction against the tenant. Both the brothers appointed the petitioners herein as their power of attorney agent to collect the rent. The petition for eviction was filed by the said power of attorney. In the recent past the shutters in the godown was not working properly. Hence a request was made to the landlord to repair the shutters. But that was not done. The petition premises is a godown and in the godown the landlord cannot conduct his business in selling the oil cakes. There are other owners for the petition premises. They are not impleaded as parties in the eviction petition. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.I. The respondents examined one witness on their side. The landlord filed 13 documents and the tenant filed seven documents. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. Aggrieved, the tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Control Appellate Authority con-Firmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. It is against that order, the present revision is preferred by the tenant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ tenant submitted as under: The landlord failed to establish his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The landlords are in occupation of the first floor and the tenant is in occupation of the ground floor. The tenant is using the petition premises for non-residential purposes, and the landlord is using the upstair portion for residential purpose. According to the landlords they are carrying on their business in selling oil cakes in the rented premises at No.3, Thatha M