Eviction of sub-tenant by chief tenant.

This is a petition by one Nataraja Achari, a goldsmith tenant making and selling gold, silver and diamond jewels in a portion of the premises rented out to the respondent, the chief tenant, for revising and setting aside the order of the appellate authority, the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, directing his eviction from the premises on the ground that the respondent-land-lord required the premises bona fide for additional accommodation for running the grain shop for which he bad made preparations, as his maligai shop, in the building opposite, was not prospering, and was landing him in heavy loss, and he wanted to run this grainshop in addition to the maligai shop in order to earn a comfortable living; The respondent is keeping roughly one half of the very tiny premises and is paying a total rent of Rs. 10 per mensem to Mr. K. Rajah Ayyar, the landlord. The petitioner is occupying the other half, and paying Rs. 9 as rent per month to the respondent, the chief-tenant. It is admitted by the learned counsel on both sides that no grain-trade can be carried on in the one half of these very tiny premises now in the occupation of the respondent, and that if grain-trade is to be carried on, both the halves must be in the occupation of the respondent, the chief-tenant. At present the respondent is only keeping his furniture and some bags of grain in his half.

The petitioner had alleged that the petition for eviction had not been filed by the respondent, the chief-tenant, bona fide and that the respondent’s father respondent’s mother and the respondent himself had tried to evict him by hook or by crook. He said that the respondent’s father had filed several petitions for evicting him on various frivolous grounds and had ultimately failed. The lower appellate authority brushed aside those objections on the ground that the father’s petitions were not proved to be frivolous or mala fide and that, even if they were really frivolous or mala fide they would not show this petition by the son to be frivolous or mala fide, and, that this was the first occasion when the petitioner was sought to be evicted on the ground of additional accommodation required by the respondent for carrying on his grain-trade. It also, like the Rent Controller, disbelieved the story that the respondent’s mother had asked pagdi (tenancy bribe) of Rs. 700 in respect of the premises from the petitioner if he were to be left in peaceful occupation of the premises, and not harassed by further petitions for evictions. The petitioner had added that he could not pay this heavy bribe, being a foreman, though trading in gold jewels. There was little reliable evidence in support of the demand of pagdi. It is very unlikely, as observed by the lower appellate authority, that the respondent’s mother would have carried on any negotiations with the tenant for the payment of this bribe amount of Rs. 700 at the period alleged, namely the month following her husband’s death. The respondent’s own bona fides was attacked by saying that he wanted to evict the petitioner and rent out his portion for a higher rent to others. The Courts below considered it very improbable, as the fair rent had been fixed at Rs. 9 per month for that portion, and nobody in Madras would pay more than the fair rent. So the bringing in of any third party as a tenant could not improve the situation for the respondent. The lower appellate Court considered, unlike the Rent Controller, that the respondent required half of these very tiny premises, occupied by the petitioner, for carrying on his grain-trade for which he had made preparations, and that the balance of hardship lay in favour of ordering eviction as the respondent stood to lose more than the petitioner. So it directed the eviction of the petitioner and made the petitioner pay the costs of the respondent.

It is well settled now that a chief-tenant will be a “landlord” within the meaning of the Act, and that he can ask for eviction of his tenant f