Scope of revision under Section 115 of the code.

The petitioner-landlord is for a second time in this Court in the same proceedings wherein he sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant, under old section 7(3)(a)(iii) as amended by Madras Act VIII of 1951 and new section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Act XVIII of 1960, from a non-residential building of his in the town of Madurai. Though the proceedings was initiated under the earlier Act as amended by Act VIII of 1951, yet it is not disputed that it is governed by the provisions of Act XVIII of 1960. The petitioner was unsuccessful throughout and when he came to this Court in C.R.P.No. 2154of 1963, Alagiriswami,J. set aside the order of the District Judge on the ground that he did not apply his mind to the crucial question involved in the petition, whether the requirement of the non-residential premises by the petitioner was bona fide or not. The matter was remanded to his file and once again the learned District Judge has disposed of the matter laconically and without adverting to the law applicable to the casse and without appreciating the correct facts. It has therefore become necessary for me to peruse the records from the beginning and hear arguments of Counsel in full.

The relevant facts are as follows. The petitioner who is a scrap-iron dealer for the past several years, is licensed to do the same business at Tirumangalam, not within the precincts of Madurai Town where the suit premises is situate. The petitioner has 8 sons of whom 3 are in business dealings in trunk boxes at Dindigul near Madurai. This is obviously allied to iron trade. The petitioner in the witness box, though not in the pleadings, stated that the premises is required for the business of his sons also. It may be noted that the petition was filed under the Act of 1949 as amended by Act VIII of 1951, which provided for an application, in case it is a nonresidential building, if the landlord is not occupying for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, a non-residential building in the City etc. There was no provision then for a similar application for possession in case the premises was needed lay his son. The petition was filed in June 1960. Act XVIII of 1960 came into force from September, 1960 and under section 10(3)(a)(iii), a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, in case it is a non-residential building, if the landlord or his son is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or his son is carrying on, a nonresidential building in the City which is his own. Section 35 of Act XVIII of 1960 enabled the petitioner to take advantage of the changed law and apparently he gave evidence before the Controller that the premises was required by his sons also. The Rent Controller noticed this fact. He categrically found that the documents filed as well as the petition indicated that the petitioner was doing business in scrap iron and that he required the building in the occupation of the respondent for the same. He did not fully advert to the requirement of the premises by the sons of the petitioner, though it was specifically referred to in the evidence. He however held that the petitioner did not obtain any quota for such scrap iron for doing business in Madurai and surmised that the trade of the petitioner was random, precarious and not appreciable. He entertained a doubt whether the petitioner had any capital to expand or start a business at Madurai. Hence he was of the view that it was doubtful if the petitioner bona fide thought of starting a business at Madurai and he dismissed the application.

The appellate authority found that there cannot be much of doubt about the petitioner’s business at Tirumangalam. Having found this, he dismissed the appeal on the ground that no application has been made to secure the quota of iron for Madurai. He also hesitantly found that the requirement pleaded for the sons’ business is an after-thought, since it was not not plead