The court held that a landlord can evict a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for own occupation if the landlord has a genuine and pressing need for the premises and if the tenant has no other suitable accommodation.

1. The unsuccessful tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, which is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in R.C.A. No. 42 of 1988 dated 18-6-1991, reversing the order of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, in R.C.O.P. No. 13 of 1986 dated 29-2-1988.

2. During the pendency of the revision, the tenant M. Venkiduswami Pillai died on 14-12-1993 and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 11 by order dated 9-8-1996 in C.M.P. No. 3769 of 1994.

3. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 13 of 1986 against the tenant M. Venkiduswamy Pillai for eviction on the grounds of wilful default in the payment of rent, bona fide requirement of the building for owners occupation and causing damage to the building concerned. The tenant contested the eviction petition contending inter alia that the landlord had refused to receive the rent tendered by him. The landlord had also refused to give the particulars of bank account to enable the tenant to deposit the rent in the bank account. The requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition. Against the same, the landlord filed R.C.A. No. 42 of 1988 before the Appellate Authority, who reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal and ordered eviction giving two months time to the tenant to vacate the petition mentioned premises. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Appellate Authority, the tenant has preferred the above revision.

4. I have heard Mr. K. Jayaraman for the petitioners and Mr. P.L. Narayanan for the respondent.

5. Mr. K. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the tenant has not committed any default, much less wilful default, in the payment of rent and since the landlord refused to accept the rent tendered by the tenant, the refusal by the landlord has to be construed as wilful and therefore, the Appellate Authority ought to have held that the tenant has not committed any default. It is also contended that the Appellate Authority ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the landlord from the fact of his refusing to receive the tenants letter containing the true state of affairs. On the question of bona fide requirement of the building for own use, it is contended that the case put forward by the landlord was false and unsustainable. There was no necessity for the landlord to shift his business to Muthupettai. It is further stated that the tenants son is doing business independent of the tenant and therefore, the Appellate Authority ought to have seen that the tenant cannot use his sons building for his business. On the question of causing damage to the building, it is contended that the Appellate Authority ought to have held that minor damage to the building is inevitable in the business of textiles and therefore, the same will not affect the building materially. Lastly it is contended that the Appellate Authority ought to have held that the tenant has no other building except the petition building to carry on his business. Since the reasons given by the Appellate Authority are faulty and unsustainable, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is liable to be interfered with.

6. Per contra, Mr. P.L. Narayanan, learned counsel for the landlord contended that the property was leased out to the tenant for running a shop at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. Due to personal reasons, the landlord has started a cloth business at Pandanallur in a rented premises. Since he wants to return back to Muthupettai and also shift his cloth business from Pandanallur to Muthupettai, he informed his intention to the tenant and requested him to vacate the above premises in order to enable him to start his cloth shop therein. Initially, the tenant has agreed to vacate the same as and when he gets a suitable premises. At the instance of the landlord, a shop situated in the opposite side to th