Eviction petition filed by landlord held maintainable.

1. This civil revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 23. 1988 in R.C.O.P.No.23 of 1984 confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, Thanjavur District in R.C.A.No.16 of 1989 dated 211. 1990.

2. The respondent herein filed the petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. The case of the landlord is that he requires the building for the business of his son. The building in question is situated in Mayiladuthurai town, Pattamangala Street, Mayiladuthurai and is occupied by the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs.400. The son of the respondent herein is a partner in M/s.N.A.Ali Traders, carrying on iron and steel busin ess. The building is required for the business of his son. The respondent’s son is not owning any building of his own at Mayiladuthurai. Notice was sent on 111. 1983 and a reply containing.

3. The contention of the petitioner/tenant herein in the counter is that the eviction petition deserves to be dismissed, since it is the second one under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, in view of Section 19 of the said Act, the petition has been filed only for the purpose of extracting higher rent. The rent was originally at Rs.100 and subsequently raised to Rs.400. R.C.O.P.No.7 of 1977 was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and it was dismissed. There is no bona fide in the claim of the respondent herein that his son requires the building for his business. He also contended that the previous tenancy expired on 30.9.1983. The respondent herein demanded Rs.1,000 as rent and Rs. 10,000 as advance. Since the petitioner herein did not accept the same, the petition has been filed to evict him. The petitioner has been running the business for the past 30 years.

4. The rent controller considered the issue as to whether the claim of the respondent herein is bona fide. After considering Exs.P1 to P21 and R1 to R9 and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1, he came to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent herein that the building was required for his son’s occupation is bona fide and ordered eviction. On appeal by the petitioner herein, the appellate authority found that in view of the change in circumstances, namely, that the previous petition R.C.O.P.No.7 of 1977 was filed on the ground that the building was required for the landlord’s business, and now for the requirement of his son, and therefore the petition for eviction was not hit by Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. He also found that the requirement is bona fide and the petition is not for an oblique purpose, namely, for extracting higher rent. Since both the courts have concurred in ordering eviction of the tenant, the tenant/petitioner herein has preferred the above civil revision petition in this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.N.Padmanabhan contended that the business carried on by the son of the respondent herein is not in Mayiladuthurai, but 3 K.M. away from the respondent’s residence. It is also contended that the petition is barred by Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. He further contended that there was no bona fide. The courts below did not go into that vital question. He also contended that the respondent has not proved that his son is not owning other buildings in the town. On the other hand Mr.A.J.Abdul Razak, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the claim for respondent’s son’s occupation is bona fide and the courts below have rejected the case of the petitioner herein that the R.C.O.P. has been filed for extracting higher rent and that therefore there is no bona fide.

6. Now we shall consider the contentions of the counsel on both sides. As regards the contention that the business of the respondent’s son is 3 K.M. away from Mayiladuthurai, and he cannot claim a building situate