Conditions to be satisfied prior to grant of prayer for eviction.

1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority made in R.C.A.No.1090 of 1993 dated 22.3.1995, confirming the fair order and decretal order of the Rent Controller, passed in R.C.O.P.No.1079 of 1992 dated 11.8.1993, dismissing the petition for eviction.

2. The first petitioner (since deceased) was the landlord and the petitioners 2 to 6 are his legal representatives. The respondents are the tenants. The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenants under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act claiming that the premises in question, viz., shop No.3 in Door No.237/1,Quaide-Millat Road, Triplicane,Madras belonged to the first petitioner is required for his wife for doing tailoring business. The tenants contested the petition on the ground that the requirement of the premises for business purpose for his wife is not bona fide and that since the demand for enhanced rent was not acceded to, the petition for eviction came to be filed.

3. Accepting the counter plea made by the tenants, the Rent Controller dismissed the said petition. Having failed in his attempt, the landlord filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which in turn confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller holding that the requirement is not bona fide. This concurrent finding is challenged in this revision.

4. Before going into the merits of the contentions urged by the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents, let me list out the reasonings given by both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority for rejecting the claim of the landlord for eviction as under:

“(a) The eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground that the premises is required for his wife to have a tailoring business in the premises in question. The landlord is working as an Officer in a Bank. When the landlord is in an affluent circumstance, a suspicion arises as to whether the premises is really required for his wife for the business of stitching of cloths and as to whether she is really doing the said business in the residential premises as alleged. To prove that his wife was already carrying on the tailoring business. the landlord could have examined any customer or his wife. But, this is not done. Ex.P-1 is the Diploma for Tailoring obtained by the daughter of the landlord in 1980. She already got married. She is living with her husband separately. The daughter also was not examined to support the landlord. As such, there is no evidence that his wife was carrying on business in tailoring at the time of filing the petition for eviction.

(b) The initial agreement entered into between the father of the present tenants and the landlord in 1984 was for five years. The monthly rental amount was fixed at Rs.350. After the expiry of give years, that is, in 1989, the rent was enhanced to Rs.437.50. If the premises is actually required for own use for doing business by the wife, the landlord would not have agreed for the rental increase of 25 per cent even at the time of expiry of five years in 1989. The second agreement executed in 1989 will have force till the year 1994. Since the landlord demanded for further enhancement of rent and the same was refused, the tenant had to file a petition before the Rent Controller for deposit of the rental amount. Thereupon, the landlord had no other alternative except to make an endorsement in the court that he is prepared to receive the amount and consequently, the petition under Sec.8(5) of the Act was closed. Since he was not able to get the enhanced rent, he has filed the petition for the requirement of the premises for the use of his wife for business which is not based on bona fide intention.

(c) Even according to the landlord, there is only one sewing machine available in the house. Therefore, the said sewing machine may be for her own use. There is no details in the evidence as to how many sewing machine