Averments made in eviction petition cannot negate findings of Civil Court and judgment thereon.

Challenging concurrent findings and order of eviction on the ground of Additional Accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Tenant has preferred this Revision.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original rank in R.C.O.P.No.254 of 2001 on the file of Rent Controller (XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai).

1. Petitioners filed R.C.O.P.No.254 of 2001 under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act") for Owners Occupation stating that they are Doctors running a Polyclinic in the name and style of "Jaydev Polyclinic" at the petition mentioned premises. The Respondent/Tenant is running a Medical Shop in the tenanted portion of the schedule property in an area of 120 sq.ft. Monthly rent is Rs.3,000/-. Petitioners/Landlords filed Eviction Petition requiring premises for establishing Trauma Care Unit (for short "ICU") since schedule property is closest to Operation Theatre and opening of ICU at schedule property will be ideal and their need is bonafide.

3. 2. Denying allegations in the Petition, the Respondent/Tenant contested the Petition raising objection as to maintainability of Petition as the Landlords never accepted Respondent as their Tenant either in O.S.No.5128 of 2000 or in the Eviction Petition. According to Respondent/Tenant, having taken a stand that the Respondent is only a permissive occupier, Landlord is estopped from claiming otherwise. Respondent is in occupation of only an extent of 120 sq.ft and that is insufficient to establish ICU and claim of Landlords is not bonafide.

3. 3. Petitioners examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Respondent was examined as R.W.1 and documentary evidence was adduced. Upon analysis of evidence, Rent Controller found that Landlords requirement for ICU is bonafide. Rent Controller pointed out offering of alternative site, which was not accepted by Tenant on the plea of "Vasthu". Aggrieved by order of Eviction, the Tenant has preferred Appeal. On the basis of Judgment in O.S.No.5128 of 2000, the Appellate Authority held that the Respondent is Statutory Tenant. Appellate Authority confirmed the order of Eviction finding that the requirement of Petitioners/Landlords is bonafide. Appellate Authority also held that relative hardship is also only in favour of the Landlords, which is challenged in this Revision.

4. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has contended that the Courts below ought to have held that there is no Landlord – Tenant relationship between Petitioners and Respondent. Placing reliance upon number of decisions, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner interalia raised following contentions:-

/ When Petitioner had pleaded that there is no Landlord and Tenant relationship and having filed Petition without prejudice to their claim, eviction petition is not maintainable;

/ Bonafide requirement is not proved and lack of pleadings was not properly appreciated by courts below;

/ Under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act, hardship need to be proved and relative hardship to Tenant would outweigh advantages to the Landlords since alternative space is available to Landlords to construct ICU.

5. Countering arguments, learned Counsel for Respondents has submitted that Landlords profession is service oriented and proper treatment is to be given to the emergency cases. Contending that ICU has to be adjacent to Operation Theatre, learned counsel submitted that hardship caused to Landlords and service rendered by them would be greater. It was further submitted that on superstitious belief of Vasthu, the Tenant had not accepted the alternative site offered by Landlords, which only shows lack of bonafide on the part of Tenant.

6. There is no dispute that Landlords are running "Jaydev Polyclinic" in Poonamallee High Road. Demised property is appurtenant to main hospital building where Tenant is running Medi