Tenant care not raise plea of hardship when tenant owns other buildings.

Challenge in this Revision is the concurrent findings of Rent Control Authorities, ordering eviction under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground of requirement for the business of Landladys Son.

1. This Revision arises on the following facts:- Respondent is the owner of Petition mentioned property – Door No.26, (New No.54), Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Landladys Son – Robinson is an unemployed Diploma Holder in Automobile Engineering. Eviction Petition was filed seeking the premises for the business of said Robinson. Landlady contended that her Husband retired from Madras Refinery Limited (MRL) and that he has good experience in repairing works and that Landladys Son has taken necessary steps to start a business at the petition mentioned premises.

2. 2. Tenant resisted the Eviction Petition contending that Landladys Son is employed in a Car Show Room and therefore, it is incorrect to state that he is unemployed and wants to start Automobile business. Tenant has further contended that Landlady is demanding exorbitant rent and refused to receive the monthly rent and the Tenant was forced to send the rent through Money Order. Tenant raised the plea of hardship that he is carrying on his business for more than 20 years and he is having numerous customers in and around the area and if he is evicted, he will be put to great hardship and inconvenience.

3. In consideration of evidence, the Rent Control Authorities held the Landladys requirement for business of her Son is bonafide and requirements of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act are proved and ordered eviction.

4. Challenging the concurrent findings, learned counsel for Revision Petitioner/Tenant has submitted that to prove bonafide, Landlady has not adduced any evidence and the steps taken in commencing of Automobile Business. It was further submitted that evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 alone is not sufficient to test the bonafide. Submitting that another shop is remaining vacant and that Landlady has not occupied the same, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner urged that requirement of Landlady lacks bonafide.

5. Submitting that another portion is too small to run Automobile Spare Parts and Servicing Shop, learned counsel for the Respondent/Landlady has submitted that for running the Automobile Shop, a minimum extent of 1000 sq.ft is required. Learned counsel for Landlady has further submitted that for starting Automobile Spare Parts Shop, elaborate preparation is not required and the Courts below have satisfied as to the bonafide requirement of the premises and that concurrent finding cannot be interfered with.

6. For ordering eviction under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act"), the Landlord should satisfy the following conditions:-

i. the premises in question must be non-residential;

ii. the Member for whom the premises is required must be carrying on business;

iii. the member for whom the premises is required should not be occupying for the purpose of such business, a non-residential building of his/her own;

iv. the requirement of the Landlord for the business of the member of the family should be bonafide.

7. First objection of the Tenant is that Landlady or P.W.2 cannot be said to be not occupying any non-residential of his/her own. Placing emphasis on the words "the landlord is not occupying for purpose of a business he is carrying on", learned counsel for the Tenant has contended that another shop portion is vacant and the same can be used for the purpose of Automobile business which Landlady intends to carry on. It was further submitted that non-occupation of another portion remaining vacant would show lack of bonafide. In 1983, Revision Petitioner became a Tenant of four rooms and at the time of filing earlier R.C.O.P.No.2074 of 2000, Revision Petitioner has vacated one room and presently in occupation of three rooms only. Earlier, R.C.O.P.No.2