A landlord can evict a tenant under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 if the landlord genuinely requires the premises for his own use.

1. This is a revision petition by the landlady whose petition for eviction against the respondent-tenant filed under S. 10(3)(a)(iii), of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) was allowed by the Rent Controller but the order was set aside by the appellate authority.

2. The landlady is admittedly the owner of shop No. 4, at No. 36 Mukathal St, Madras-7. The tenant who deals in ready made, clothes has a tailoring shop in the premises in question. He has two other premises in the same street in which he is carrying on business. Originally, the landlady had filed two petitions claiming possession on different grounds being H.R.C. 3089 of 1979 and 3928 of 1980. Both of them were dismissed for default and it appears that the landlady also failed in her attempts to get these proceedings restored to file.

3. The landlady then filed the present petition on 2nd April, 1982 on the ground that she was making home made condiments and pickles and that her son was also unemployed and she, therefore, needed the shop in question for her own use for running her said business as according to her because of lack of space she could not continue the business from her residential portion as it was in the interior and not suited for business. It may be stated that the premises in question and the premises in which the landlady is residing are connected. She is residing in the rear of the premises while the shop is in front of her residential premises.

4. The tenant denied that the landlady required the premises for her business. He pleaded that the earlier proceedings having been rejected, the landlady was not entitled to once again take proceedings on the same ground. With regard to his other places of business, his case was that in the present premises he had a show room while the other places were used only for stitching and keeping the sewing machines. It was denied by the tenant that the landlady was carrying on any business in home-made condiments and pickles.

5. Before the Rent Controller, the landlady and her son were examined. The tenant also gave evidence. The Rent Controller held that the petition was maintainable because the claim of the landlady in the earlier petitions was not decided on merits and they were dismissed for default. The Rent Controller accepted the evidence of the landlady that she was carrying on the business of selling homemade articles and according to the Rent Controller, the absence of a licence for such business did not mean that the landlady was not carrying on the business, because according to him, the type of business which the landlady was carrying on did not need any licence. A contention was raised before the Rent Controller that a shop had fallen vacant in 1981, and the landlady instead of occupying it had let it out. The Rent Controller, however; accepted the explanation of the landlady that at that time she was not in a position to take the shop. The Rent Controller also rejected the case of the tenant that there were some disputes between the landlady and the tenant as a result of the landlady closing down a latrine, and therefore, the petition filed by the landlady was not bona fide. In view of the finding that the requirement of the landlady of the shop for her own business is bona fide, the petition for eviction was allowed.

6. In the appeal filed by the tenant, the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding recorded by the Rent Controller, that the petition was maintainable under S.10(3)(a)(iii). However, with regard to the merits of the claim of the landlady, the Appellate Authority took the view that there was no scrap of paper nor any correspondence shown which would indicate that the landlady was running business in condiments and pickles. The Appellate Authority also took the view that when two shops had fallen vacant in 1975, which according to the landlady had really fallen vacant in 1980, the landlady should have occupied those s