Rent being paid by tenant very low.

The tenant Messrs.Brooke Bond India Limited who lost before both the authorities below, is the revision petitioner.

2. Respondent herein filed the eviction petition for eviction on the ground that the building is required by him for bona fide own use. It is averred in paragraph 3 of the eviction petition that he is the owner of the building. Even though the petitioner (in the eviction petition) owns other buildings, all of them are tenanted. He is running a partnership business along with his other family members Besides that, he is also having money-lending business. For the purpose of the partnership business and also for the money-lending business, he wants the scheduled building. It is said that the petitioner is not having in his possession any other building which is suitable for the said purpose. It is further averred that various demands were made to the tenant, petitioner herein, and they promised to vacate the demised premises provided some time was given. On that assurance, one year time was given. Of course, at that time, they volunteered to pay an increased rent. But even after the expiry of the time granted, the tenant did not vacate. It is further averred in the eviction petition that to preempt the attempt of the landlord to get eviction, tenant has filed a petition before the Rent Controller, as R.C.O.P. No.490 of 1979, seeking permission to deposit the rent into court. The (rent control) petitioner, therefore, prays that he may be allowed to get possession of the building in question, for the purpose of his own use.

3. In the counter-statement filed by the tenant, petitioner herein, it is said that the claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide own use cannot be granted. According to them, the said demand was made only to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent from time to time. The monthly rent which was Rs. 150 has been increased from time to time, to Rs.400. It is said that the petition as framed is not maintainable. When the demand is for partnership business and not for his personal business, it cannot be termed as ‘bona fide own use’.

4. The Rent Controller, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the landlord is entitled to get eviction. But the question of bona fides was not considered. Rent Controller was of the view that in respect of a non-residential building, if the requirement is proved, bona fides are not material. He came to the conclusion that the demand made by the landlord justifies eviction.

5. The matter was taken in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that since the landlord has no other building of his own even though he is doing business in partnership, he is entitled to get eviction. The appellate authority also came to the conclusion that the claim made is bona fide. It is against the concurrent findings, tenant has come up in revision.

6. The only point that is urged before me at the time of arguments by learned counsel for the petitioner is that eviction for bona fide use cannot be had for the purpose of a partnership business of which the landlord is a partners. Learned counsel for the landlord stressed the words ‘his business’ and ‘carrying on business’, appearing in the Statute. I do not want to discuss the law regarding the same when the same is concluded by various judgments of this Court, other High Courts and the Supreme Court.

7. When a similar question came for consideration under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act (Act 41 of 1961) in D.N.Sanghavi & Sons v. Ambalal Tribhuwan Das, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1026: (1974)1 S.C.C. 708, their Lordships considered the question as to what is meant by the expression "his business" and whether it includes "business of partnership’. Their Lordships emphasised the words ‘own’ in the phrase’ his own occupation’, and said that the same should not be discarded as redundant. Thereafter, their Lordships said that the idea behind the legislation is that