Right of landlord to evict his own tenant.

This is an application for issuing a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, in C.M.A. No. 41 of 1949.

The petitioner is the owner of shop No. 7/9 in Bazar Street, Chittoor. The respondent is his tenant and has been carrying on business in pulses in the said shop. In the same street, the petitioner has been carrying on a similar business in another shop. That shop is owned by one Kandappa Chetti and the petitioner is his tenant. Kandappa Chetti filed an application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 (hereafter referred to as the Act) for evicting the petitioner. That application was dismissed. Subsequent to the dismissal of that application, the petitioner filed an application under section 7 of Act XXV of 1949 before the Rent Controller, Chittoor, for evicting the respondent. The Rent Controller dismissed that application on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent committed any act of waste or that he has been in arrears of rent. He filed an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor. In appeal, the petitioner’s right to evict was based upon the contention that he has no other non-residential building of his own or to the possession of which he is entitled. The learned Judge rejected his contention and con- firmed the order of the Rent Controller. The present application is filed for issuing; a Writ of Certiorari to quash that order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is in possession of the house of Kandappa Chetty by reason of the privilege conferred on him under the Act and not by reason of any title in him and therefore he would be entitled under the provisions of the Act for evicting the respondent from the premises. The question raised in this case turns upon the construction of section 7(3) of the Act. Section 7(3) reads:

“(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession:

(i) in the case of a residential building, if he requires it for his own occupation and if he is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned

(ii) in the case of a non-residential building, if he is not occupying for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned, which is. his own or to the possession of which he is entitled.”

It will be seen from the aforesaid provisions that in the case of a residential building, a landlord can evict a tenant if he is not occupying a residential building of his own whereas in the case of a non-residential building he can do so only if he it not in possession of a non-residential building of his own or if he is not entitled’ to the possession of any such building. The antithesis is between the ownership of a building and a building to the possession of which he is entitled. To narrow the point further, is he entitled to the possession of a non-residential building The dictionary meaning of the word “entitle” is to give a claim, right or title to. Can it be said that a person, who is in possession of a premises under the provisions of the Act, is a person, who is entitled to its possession. Tenant is defined under section 2(4) as follows:

“Tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a Municipal Council or local board or the Corporation of Madras.”

The definition of the word “tenant” takes in persons, who are not strictly tenants under general law. The statute creates a statutory tenancy even in respect of persons continuing in possession after the termination of