The court's interpretation of 'carrying on business' in the context of a medical profession and the requirement of bona fide need for eviction.

1. The Revision Petition is filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 14 of 1989, on the file of Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The main ground on which eviction is sought by the landlady is that her son requires the schedule building for his occupation. It is her case that her son who has studied M.B.B.S. is in dire need of non-residential building for running a clinic, and either she or her son does not own any other non-residential building, for the said purpose. It is said that various demands were made to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises, and at last a notice was issued on 27.2.1989, for which a reply was sent on 17.3.1989, refusing to hand over possession, and at the same, time, taking untenable contentions. On the above grounds, eviction petition was filed by the landlady.

3. In the counter-statement filed by the tenant, bona fide requirement for the son is denied. It is said that even before and after notice, other buildings became vacant, and if the Landlady had any intention to occupy any building for her son, she could have occupied one such building. He further said that landladys son is only studying for M.B.B.S. and he is not doing any profession. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. The Rent Controller after examining the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlady is bona fide . He further found that the son has no other building of his own, and that at the time when the landlady was adducing evidence, the son had to complete six months education, for finishing M.B.B.S. course, and that will not stand in the way of the landlady getting possession of the building. Rent Controller further held that the completion of M.B.B.S. course itself is a step to ‘carry on business’ and, therefore, there is no disqualification on the part of the landlady to get possession of a non-residential premises. The claim was also found to be bona fide.

5. The aggrieved tenant, took up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority also did not find any reason to differ from the finding of the Rent Controller, and consequently dismissed the Appeal.

6. It is against the concurrent findings of the Authorities below, this Revision is filed.

7. All the contentions that were raised before the Authorities below were urged before this Court also. How far those contentions could be sustained is a matter to be decided in this Revision. Further, when both the Authorities below have entered a definite finding that the claim of the landlady is bona fide, it is for the tenant to substantiate his case that the findings of the Authorities below are in any way improper, irregular or illegal. At the same time, this Court is not entitled to reconsider the evidence as a Second Court of First Appeal. For the purpose of arriving at a different finding, the evidence should not be re-appreciated, and, for that reason, the decisions of the Authorities below should not be upset. With these limitations in the power of this Court, I have to consider whether, the findings of the Authorities below are in any way wrong.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner first submitted that the rights of parties will have to be decided as on the date of petition.

9. It is said that on the date of petition, petitioners (landladys) son was only a student and, therefore, a claim of present need cannot be found. Learned counsel also submitted that the words used in the Section are regarding present requirement, giving emphasis to the words ‘carrying on business’. If importance is to be given to those words, according to learned counsel, a future prospect of completing M.B.B.S. and thereafter running a clinic is not a matter to be considered.

10. I do not agree with the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true, under ordinary circumstances, decision will have to be arrived at as on the date of institution of the proceedings. But that does not prohibit the landlady from taking into consideration the r