Requirement placed by landlord held not bonafide by Court.

R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif, Cuddalore, was filed by the petitioner herein, for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the non-residential building, which is the subject matter of the proceeding, is bona fide required for his own occupation and also on the ground that the building requires demolition and reconstruction.

2. It is alleged by the petitioner that as per Ex.A-23 partition deed in his family, he obtained ownership over the scheduled property. The respondent herein was the tenant under his father, and, after the petitioner became the landlord, the tenancy has been attorned to him. The rate of rent is Rs.75 per month.

3. The petitioner contended that himself, his father and other members of the family were conducting jewellery business and the petitioner had experience in conducting jewellery shop. He wants to open a showroom in the scheduled building for which he has requested permission from the concerned authorities. He has also applied before the Assistant Collector, Customs, for getting licence, and he has deposited necessary amount for the said purpose. He has also sought for licence for conducting a shop. But, since no building is available, licence had not been issued. For the purpose of the said business, it is further averred, the existing building has to be demolished and the same has to be reconstructed by putting up a multi-storeyed building. It is further averred that he is in possession of sufficient funds for the purpose of opening a showroom and also for the purpose of reconstructing the building. A notice was issued to the petitioner, and from the reply, it is evident that the respondent is not going to surrender the building without recourse to court. Hence, the eviction petition was filed.

.4. In the objection, the respondent contended that initially he took the building on a rent of Rs.3.50 which was subsequently increased from time to time, and, at present, the rent is Rs. 175. It is also alleged in the objection that the petitioner demanded Rs.300 as rent, which he refused to pay and, therefore, the landlord filed the eviction petition. It is stated that the petitioner has not taken any steps for the purpose of starting a jewellery business and that he is not possessed of any means to start the same or to reconstruct the building. He also contended that there is no necessity for reconstructing the building.

5. Before the Rent Controller, both oral and documentary evidence was adduced. On the side of the petitioner, Exs. A-1 to A-34 were marked. The counter petitioner examined himself as R.W.I. Taking into consideration the entire oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller found that the claim of the petitioner that he needs the building for his own occupation is genuine. He has taken steps for starting a business, which will be sufficient for the purpose of claiming eviction. He has got sufficient means for the purpose of investing in the business and also for the purpose of reconstructing the building, and the petitioner has also necessary experience for conducting a jewellery shop. Regarding the claim that the building in question requires immediate demolition and reconstruction, the rent controller found that the building is old and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. On both the grounds, the eviction petition was allowed.

6. Against the decision, the respondent herein filed R.C.A. No.32 of 1987, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. By the impugned judgment, the appellate authority set aside the decision of the rent controller. According to the appellate authority, the revision petitioner is not carrying on business and the eviction petition was filed only when the tenant refused to pay the enhanced rent demanded by the landlord; and that the petitioner has not proved that he has means to invest in jewellery shop and also to effect reconstruction. Ultimately, the appellate authority held that the claim of the l