Landlords petition for eviction dismissed.

This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.4.1994 rendered in R.C.A.No.705 of 1992 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras thereby reversing the order of eviction dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Rent Controller and the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras made in R.C.O.P.No.1111 of 1990.

2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition having come to be filed before this Court, what comes to be known is that the petitioner herein has filed an application before the Rent Controller and the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking eviction of the tenant, the respondent herein, from the premises for his own occupation wherein the subject matter is the building located at Door No.65/2, Thambayya Reddy Street, West Mambalam,Chennai-33 on grounds such as that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the said premises, a portion of which has been let out for a monthly rent of Rs.550 for commercial purposes; that the petitioner himself is the tenant in anothers building at Door No.117, Rangarajapuram Road, Kodambakkam,Chennai-24 and he is running a flour mill there and the landlord of the said premises is pestering the petitioner to vacate the premises and also filed R.C.O.P.No.758 of 1999 against the petitioner, which is pending; that at any moment, he might be asked to vacate the premises, in which event, he will have no place to run his flour mill and hence the subject matter of the petition being his own, is required for such purpose of shifting his flour mill to the premises in question in this petition; that on account of such necessity, the petitioner required the premises to be vacated by the respondent, but since he did not comply with, issuing the necessary notice, the petitioner has come forward to institute the R.C.O.P. proceedings before the Rent Controller.

3. On the contrary on the part of the respondent/ tenant though it is admitted that the petitioner is the landlord of the premises. It would be submitted that the premises is a small portion measuring 12 feet × 7 feet, for which the respondent is paying a monthly rent of Rs.550 with an advance amount of Rs.10,000 already paid, in spite of this, from January, 1990 onwards, the petitioner sought for an enhanced rent of Rs.650 per month for which the respondent did not accede and only because of this reason, the eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner/ landlord under a false pretext of having been required for his personal use and occupation; that the petitioner is giving many troubles to the respondent; that it is false to allege that he is running a flour mill in some other premises; that the R.C.O.P.No.758 of 1989 alleged to have been filed by the landlord of the petitioner is a drama collusively enacted by the petitioner and the owner of the said premises and there is no truth attached to the same; that there are other portions in the premises which have been let out to third parties; that if the averments of the petition are true the petitioner could have occupied the other portion of the premises which was vacant in January, 1989, but he leased out the same to a Pawn Broker thereby proving that the ground alleged in the petition is a fabricated one without any truth attached to the same and that there is no bona fide attached to the petition.

4. The Rent Controller, based on the above pleadings by parities, having framed one point viz., whether the premises is really required for running the flour mill of the petitioner and whether the same is an acceptable one? would conduct enquiry into the matter wherein for oral evidence, both the petitioner and the respondent examined themselves as P.W.1 and R.W.1 respectively and would adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. Besides this, for documentary evidence, t