Maintainability of eviction petition filed by landlord.

The tenant is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under Secs.l0(3)(c) and 14(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1976, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The landlord purchased the petition premises along with the downstair portion from one Ramasubramania Iyer on 5. 1982. The tenant is in occupation of the upstair portion and the staircase. The tenant was in the petition premises even prior to the purchase of the premises by the landlord. In the downstair portion the landlord is conducting a general merchant shop. The tenant is doing business as a newspaper agent. According to the landlord, the portion under his occupation is not sufficient for his business. Hence, he required the portion under the occupation of the tenant bona fide by way of additional accommodation under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. According to the landlord, the petition premises required extensive repairs. Therefore, he also required the petition premises for repairs under Sec.14(a) of the Act. The tenant filed a suit for injunction against the landlord in O.S.No.523 of 1982 and obtained an order of interim injunction against the landlord. The landlord sent a notice to the tenant dated 18. 1982 calling upon him to quit and deliver the vacant possession. The tenant sent a reply dated 29. 1982 refusing to vacate. Hence, the landlord came forward with this petition for eviction.

2. According to the tenant the portion under the occupation of the landlord is sufficient to carry on his business. The tenant submitted that the landlord does not require the portion under the occupation of the tenant bona fide under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. According to the tenant, the petition premises is in good condition. Therefore, it requires no repairs. It was, therefore, pleaded that the petition for eviction is liable to be dismissed. The landlord filed Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5. The tenant filed Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-10. Ex.C-1 is the report filed by the commissioner. The landlord examined himself as P.W.I. The tenant examined himself as R.W.I Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the request of the landlord for eviction under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act and under Sec.l4(a)of the Act cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, the petition for eviction was dismissed. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Control Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. In so far as the order passed by the Rent Controller under Sec. 14(a) of the Act is concerned, the same was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is against this order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenant.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted as under:

There is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. In the petition for eviction the landlord failed to plead hardship that may be caused to him if the tenant is not evicted from the petition premises. There is also no averments to the effect that if the tenant is evicted, the hardship caused to the tenant would not outweigh the advantage to the landlord. The portion under the occupation of the landlord is sufficient for his business and, therefore, his requirement of the petition premises under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act is not bona fide. There is no evidence on record to show that his business was improving so as to require additional accommodation for expanding the business. It is not correct to state that the tenant vacated the premises and conducted his business elsewhere. It is also not correct to state that the tenant sublet the portion under his occupation to a third party. The landlords business turnover per month does not