The judgment establishes the importance of considering comparative hardships, evidence presented, and relevant legal precedents in determining landlord-tenant disputes under the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.

1. The following are the allegations in brief contained in the petition filed by the petitioner/landlord (respondent herein) before the Rent Controller under Section 10 (2)(i) and Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960:-

1.(a) The petitioner is landlord and the respondent is tenant under the petitioner in respect of the schedule mentioned non-residential premises. The monthly rent for the premises is Rs.1,750/-. Rs.1,00,000/-was received as advance by the petitioner. The respondent has willfully, wantonly failed and neglected to pay the rents from the month of January 2002 at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per month. Hence he is a willful defaulter.

1.(b) The petitioner is doing xerox business in a portion of the ground floor of the schedule mentioned property under the stair case. He is having xerox machine, fax machine and STD and local telephone booth. He is also having his franchise office of First Flight Courier Service and running its collection centre in the said place. He is earning for his livelihood only through the said business. The place occupied by him is not sufficient for his business. The customers of the petitioners are not able to sit and use the telephone and the persons who are coming for xerox are also have to wait outside for taking xerox copies. He requires the portion occupied by the respondent/tenant for his business. Both the portions are under the same roof and the same is separated by 4 inch wall. If the tenant is vacated the petitioner will demolish the wall and use the same as one hall for his business. Hence eviction order may be passed.

2. In the counter filed by the respondent/tenant (Petitioner herein), the following are stated:-

2.(a) The respondent has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-as advance. There is a written agreement. It is false to state that he is willful defaulter and he is in arrears from January 2002. the petitioner is not in the habit of passing of receipts. After receiving the advance from this respondent, suddenly the petitioner began a business in S.T.D and xerox. He has fixed up name boards and sign boards obstructing the access to the shop occupied by the respondent. Further the view of the respondents shop was closed almost completely. Hence, the respondent requested the petitioner to remove the name boards and not to obstruct the access to his shop. He also requested the petitioner to issue receipts for the rents received by him for which the petitioner became hostile towards him and began to harass him.

2.(b) There was no willful default on the part of the respondent. The requirement of the petitioner on the ground of additional accommodation is not true and not bona fide at all. It is solely made for the purpose of evicting the respondent from the place to grab huge advance paid by him and to let out the same to others for enhanced rent and advance. The petitioner has vacated the prior tenant also within a short period. If he vacates the premises, the respondent will put into heavy loss. He has invested heavily in the business. He will be completely ruined if he is asked to vacate the premises. The petition is not at all bona fide, vexatious and devoid of merits. Hence the same has to be dismissed.

3. The Rent Controller has accepted the plea of the landlord with reference to the additional accommodation and rejected the claim on the ground of willful default. There is no appeal with reference to the wilful default. The petitioner/tenant filed appeal in R.C.A.No.10 of 2006 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the attending circumstances available in this case would show the landlords intention is not bona fide that he has vacated the earlier tenant one Pasupathi, who was running rice business in the demised premises, for the purpose of getting enhanced rent, that the rent controller has observed