Recognition of the Institute not proved.

The tenant is the petitioner. He has suffered an order of eviction at the hands of the appellate authority though he was successful before the Rent Controller. The respondents have filed the petition for eviction under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(3)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for wilful default in payment of rent and for own occupation for the business of the respondents. The ground of wilful default is no longer in issue before me. The courts below have found against the landlords on that issue.

2. As regards the requirement for own occupation, the case of the petitioner is that he is running a typewriting as well as a commercial institute recognised by the Government and under the provisions of Sec.l0(4)(ii) of the Act the petition for eviction is not maintainable. The appellate authority has rejected the said contention of the tenant on the ground that the document produced by it, viz., Ex.B-1 to prove the recognition granted by the Government is an incomplete one and no reliance can be placed thereon. The appellate authority has rejected the material evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner and held that the petitioner has not proved its entitlement to the benefits of Sec.l0(4)(ii) of the Act. No doubt, the appellate authority has also observed that the typewriting institute is not an “educational institution” within the meaning of the section. That view is clearly erroneous in the context in which the expression “educational institution” appears in the section. It will certainly include a typewriting institute as well as commercial institute.

3. Ex.B-1 shows that it is a part of a Government order. Obviously it is the first page of the Government order. According to the said page, the institute of the petitioner is permitted to give training on commercial lessons bearing Index Nos. 1, 2, 21 and 22 in the said subjects. The register number for the institute is given as 40142. There appears a seal affixed by the Director of Technical Education with the date 15. 1981. It is expressly mentioned therein that it is an order only for the year 1981. Further it refers to the conditions found in the annexure to the same. But the petitioner has not chosen to produce the remaining part of the document, thus, depriving the court of the opportunity to know the conditions imposed by the order subject to which recognition was granted. The document has no evidentiary value as it is a mutilated one. Unless the petitioner had produced the entire document, he cannot place any reliance on the said document in order to sustain the contention that the institute is a recognised one, within the meaning of the section. It is also not known from the said document whether the recognition continues to be in force.

.4. If Ex.B-1 is eschewed the only remaining evidence is that of the deposition of R.Ws.l and 2. R.W.I is the second petitioner herein. He has spoken to the fact that the trust is running the institute under the name “Memorial Free Technical Institute”. He has also said that the trust is meeting a portion of the expenditure of the institute which is run for charity. He has not said that recognition continues to be in force nor has he spoken about the conditions subject to which recognition was granted. R.W.2 claims to be the commercial instructor working for about nine years in the institute. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he has seen Ex.B-1 earlier and that the conditions annexed to Ex.B-1 are kept in a separate file.

5. When the evidence adduced by the petitioner is to the effect that the portion of the document containing the conditions is available in a separate file, the petitioner ought to have produced the same. There is no explanation whatever for non-production of that part of the document. In the absence of the production of the entire document showing the recognition granted by the Government in favour of the petitioner, the appel