ORDER.-This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the proceedings before the House Rent Controller (District Munsif, Mannargudi). The petitioner is the landlord. He filed a petition for the eviction under section 7(3) (a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The suit property originally belonged to one Santhana Ramayyar and his brothers. The respondent was their tenant from 9th June, 1956. The allegation in the petition was that the house was given originally for residential purpose, and that subsequently the respondent is using the front portion for his printing press and residing in the rear portion of the building the tenant was put on notice by the original owner, Santhana Ramayyar, that he is liable to be evicted, as he is using the building for a different purpose. Subsequently Santhana Ramayyar sold the property to the petitioner herein on 20th May, 1958 and the tenant attorned to the petitioner, subsequently there was a partition between the petitioner’s father and his brother on 1st January, 1959. Next day, the petitioner and his father effected a partition in and by which the property purchased by the petitioner was allotted to him. Now the petitioner filed the petition for eviction on the ground that he required the building for his residential purpose and also for his business which he is carrying on at Nidamangalam and Coimbatore.

The respondent contended that this application is not a bona fide one. The petitioner’s father himself made a complaint to the local District authorities that the petitioner was committing nuisance by installing the printing press in the building. After purchasing the building in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner’s father effected partition allotting the building to the petitioner in order to apply for eviction of the respondent. The petitioner is a bachelor and residing with his father. The petition is not maintainable.

The District Munsif gave a finding that the respondent took the building both for residential and non-residential purposes. He held that the respondent is not entitled to possession of the suit building under section 7 (3) (a) (ii), but is entitled to possession of it under section 7 (3) (a) (i) of the Act for his residential purpose and the application is a bona fide one. But on appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge, he gave a finding that the application is not a bona fide one, that the dominant purpose of letting the house was to run a printing press which was the principal user to which the building was put, and that the petitioner did not require the building either for residential or non-residential purposes. On revision to the learned District Judge, he confirmed the order of the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the petitioner did not require the building for non-residential purpose. It is against this order the petitioner landlord has filed this Revision Petition.

The only ground that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the application is a bona fide one and whether the petitioner requires the building for his own use and necessity.

When we consider the question whether the landlord requires the building bona Jide for his own use, we have to bear in mind whether the premises may be required reasonably and bona fide. It is the duty of the Court to see whether the premises are required both reasonably and bona fide. Bona fides may be proved in an ordinary way like any other fact. There is no such rule of law that bona fides being the subject-matter, can only be proved by the petitioner stepping into the witness-box. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further the word implies that it is more under the force of his personal circumstances than under the impulse of a desire that the landlord needs the premises ; but desire is not ruled out. Requirement has a subjective element in it, whereas the term ‘‘reasonable" possesses an objective element.

The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document