Bonafide requirement of landlord proved by oral as well as documentary evidence.

1. C.R.P. No. 2777 of 1994: The tenant who suffered by an order of eviction on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli filed the above Revision.

2. The landlord filed a petition in RCOP. No. 93 of 1989 on the file of Rent Controller, Tirunelveli. According to the landlord, he purchased the property for the purpose of carrying on his own business. He studied and passed his training in Motor Mechanism for I.T.I. Pettai. He has sufficient knowledge in the spare parts of Automobiles. When he sought for loan from the State Bank of India, Tirunelveli, they sent a letter dt. 9.3.1989, directing the petitioner/landlord to approach any nationalised Bank at Tirunelveli Town. He also applied for loan to Canara Bank, Tirunelveli, for which he was asked to meet the concerned officers. On that basis, he sent a notice on 11.2.1989 to the tenant to vacate the premises. Further, the tenant filed a counter and contested the petition on the ground that the landlord was not carrying on any business and he denied the proposal of the landlord to start the business. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the landlord on the basis of the evidence adduced before him and found that the landlord has been carrying on his business and his premises is bona fide one.

3. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 17 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of the Rent Controller, Tirunelveli. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant filed the present revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that to maintain the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to ‘the Act’) the landlord must prove that he has been carrying on business, and mere intention to carry on the business is not sufficient to sustain the petition. According to him, in Ex.P.1 notice issued by the landlord and in the petition filed for eviction, the landlord has not stated that he has been carrying on business and only in the evidence he had deposed that he has been carrying on his business. According to him. The landlord can ask for eviction only in the basis of the averments in the petition, and the pleading in the petition is taken into consideration, it shows that the landlord has only intention to start a business. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner mere intention to start a business is not enough to maintain the petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord has submitted that the orders of the Rent Controller are all summary proceedings and even though in the petition and in the notice issued by the landlord, he has not stated that he has been carrying on any business, in the evidence it is specifically deposed that he has been carrying on business in the building owned by his mother. Both the Authorities below have accepted the evidence and categorically found that the landlord has been carrying on business and his premises is bonafide one. So, in the Revision, this Court may not interfere with the said factual findings.

6. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner there is no positive averments in Ex.P.1 and in the petition to the effect that the landlord has been carrying on business in some other premises. But, from the reading of the Ex.P.1 and the petition we cannot be come to the conclusion that the landlord has admitted that he was not carrying on any business in any other place. In the evidence, P.W.1 has categorically stated that he has been carrying on business. In support of his evidence, the landlord filed this Exs.P.6 to P.15.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the absence of any pleading to the effect that the landlord has been carrying on a business, the petition cannot be maintained. To support his contention, he relied upon the decision of Ramalingam Pilla