Lack of bonafide held by the Court on original petition filed by land whether can be effective in the case filed by purchaser.

COMMON ORDER:

The tenants are the petitioners in the above civil revision petitions. The entire premises, which consist of ground floor and first floor, belonged to the joint family of the respondent and his father S.G. Purushothaman. In the ground floor portion there are about eight shops. The first floor portion was occupied by T.V.S. Workers Recreation Club. The entire building is a non-residential one. The petitioner S.Somaiah became a tenant in respect of the shop bearing Old No. 178/5 and new Door No.280, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry. The petitioner B.Vikraman became a tenant in respect of two shops in the ground floor bearing old Door Nos. 178/3 and 178/4 and new Door No.278, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry. They became tenants under the father of the respondent.

2. According to the tenant B.Vikraman, he paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000 and was paying a monthly rent of Rs.1,900. He occupied the shops and was carrying on Readymade Garments business under the name and style of New Mangaldeep. He is now paying a monthly rent of Rs.3,677. The father of the respondent filed an application for eviction of both the tenants under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 1982. Though he succeeded before the Rent Controller, he lost before the Appellate Authority and this Court. His application for eviction against the tenants was ultimately dismissed.

3. The father of the respondent having failed to evict the tenants took it as a prestige issue and executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent, his son, on 28. 1990 whereunder he purported to sell shop Nos.278/3, 278/4 and 278/5 alone with the object of securing the eviction of the tenants. The tenants were informed about sale deed executed by the landlord in favour of the respondent herein. They attorned the tenancy in favour of the respondent and was paying rent regularly. The respondent thereupon filed H.R.C.O.P. No.104 of 1992 against the tenant S.Somaiah in respect of Shop No.5 and H.R.C.O.P.No.1 12 of 1992 against B.Vikraman in respect of shop Nos.3 and 4, for eviction. The respondent/ landlord contended that he is a practising advocate, that he is at present carrying on his profession in the office of his senior, that he has picked up good volume of work and that therefore he requires the three shops for the purpose of carrying on his legal profession. He contended that though the shops are divided by partition walls, they can be removed and rendered suitable for carrying on his profession.

4. Both the tenants contested the applications contending that the alleged requirement of the respondent for his own occupation is not bona fide, that at present he is carrying on his legal profession in the ancestral house at No.54, Vysial Street, Pondicherry, that he is also residing therein along with his parents, that there is no need nor any necessity for the respondent to shift his place of profession to the petition premises, which is situate in a commercial locality and is most unsuitable for carrying on his profession as an advocate. The tenants further contended that on the assurance given by the respondent’s father at the time of the commencement of the tenancy that the tenant B.Vikraman will not be disrubed, he spent large sum of Rs.5,00,000 for decorating the shop and is at present stocking goods worth Rs. 15,00,000. He also contended that if he is evicted, he will be put to undue hardship and that the hardship that will be caused to the tenant would far out-weigh the advantage that will accrue to the respondent.

5. The learned Rent Controller, by his common order dated 7-2-1993, allowed both the applications of the respondent and ordered eviction against which the tenants filed M.A. Nos.31 and 32 of 1993 before the Appellate Authority/ Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, and the Appellate Authority by order dated 10-3-1995 dismissed both the appeals confirming the order of eviction