The judgment established the principles of maintainability under Section 10(3)(c), the requirement of bona fide and comparative hardship in eviction cases, and the impact of subsequent events on eviction decisions.

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.

2. I have heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

3. The respondent, who is the landlady of the building at No.21, Muthumari Chetty Street, Chennai-1, filed a petition in RCOP No.2713 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller, Chennai, under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground that she wanted the premises for additional accommodation, for the purpose of her sons business. Her case in the Eviction Petition was that the Northern side ground floor portion of the above building measuring about 442 sq. ft., was let out to the petitioner herein for non-residential purposes of running a lorry transport business and that her son A. Chellappan, carrying on a Tea stall business in a rented premises of less than 100 sq. ft., measurement at No.195, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-1, wanted to shift to the portion in question so that he can expand his Tea stall business with a snack bar.

4. The petitioner resisted the Eviction Petition, just denying all the allegations and contending that the motive behind the Eviction Petition was to increase the rent.

5. Before the Rent Controller, the landladys son was examined as PW.1 and he filed the following documents:-

1. The letter of authorization from the landlady as Ex.P.1.

2. The rental receipts as Ex.P.2 series.

3. The copy of the plaint in O.S.No.8298 of 1995 as Ex.P.3.

4. The receipt issued by Chennai Corporation to the landladys son as Ex.P.4.

5. The photograph and negative of the Tea stall "Sri Sastha Snacks" as Ex.P.5.

6. The letters written by the tenant to the landlady as Ex.P.6 series.

7. The letter written by the tenant to the landlady as Ex.P.7.

6. One Mr. .H. atni, who claimed to be a partner in the petitioner-firm (tenant) earlier and claimed to be a Manager later, was examined as RW.1 and he filed only the letter of authorization given to him as Ex.R.1. Apart from the same, the petitioner-tenant did not file any document.

7. On an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller found that the respondent-landladys son was in fact carrying on a Tea stall business in a rented premises at No.195, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-1. Though the petitioner-tenant had chosen to deny this in their counter, their witness RW.1 admitted in cross-examination that there was a Tea stall by name "Sri Sastha Tea Stall" at No.195, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-1. But he claimed that he did not see the landlady or her son in the Tea stall. But the rental receipts filed by the landlady as Ex.P.2 series, established that the landladys son was a tenant in respect of No.195, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-1. The challan issued by the Corporation in the name of the landladys son (Ex.P.5) and the photograph filed as Ex.P.6, were accepted by the Rent Controller. Therefore the Rent Controller concluded that the landladys son was carrying on business in a rented premises and that the landlady or her son did not own any building other than the petition-building.

8. During cross-examination of RW.1, he also admitted that the Tea stall in Thambu Chetty Street, would be only about 100 sq. ft., and that he had seen people sitting outside the Tea stall on the pavement and eating snacks. This admission of RW.1 corroborated the evidence of PW.1 that due to lack of adequate space in the rented premises where he was running a Tea stall, the customers were eating snacks outside the stall, inviting the wrath of the police.

.9. The plaint in O.S.No.8298 of 1995, filed as Ex.P.3, showed that the premises in which the landladys son was running a Tea stall was owned by a temple and that they had already instituted proceedings for eviction of the landladys son from the plac