Landlord can be given an opportunity to rectify mistake.

Tenant in R.C.O.P. No.17 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Kovilpatti is the revision petitioner. Petition for eviction on the ground of owners occupation and demolition and reconstruction was dismissed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 1.6.2005, which was reversed in judgment and decree dated 15.11.2005 in R.C.A.No.6 of 2005. The ground for eviction is for owners occupation under Sec.10(3)(i) and for demolition and reconstruction under Sec.14(1)(b).

2. The contention of the landlord (P.W.1) was that he is running his business as tenant in a building belonging to his father; that he has no other building for occupation and that he wants to do his business in the suit premises and therefore, he requires the same for his own occupation.

3. By examining P.W.2 anEngineer, who filed a report through Ex.P-7 contending that the building is of 70 years old; that under Ex.P-4 a planning permission for reconstruction was granted on 25.5.2004 with a plan through Ex. P-2. On such ground the bona fides of his requirement for demolition and reconstruction was canvassed. There was no denial about the fiscal capacity of the landlord to reconstruct building.

4. Combining the two purposes of the requirement by the landlord for his own occupation and demolition and reconstruction will never render the requirement as mala flde and such was the position of law laid down on Periaswamy Nadar. S. v. T.M.P.N. Singaravel Periaswamy Nadar. S. v. T.M.P.N. Singaravel Periaswamy Nadar. S. v. T.M.P.N. Singaravel (1997)3 L.W. 731. Therefore the combined purposes of the requirement will not go against the landlord.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P.S. Pareed Kaka and others v. Shafee Ahmed Saheb P.S. Pareed Kaka and others v. Shafee Ahmed Saheb P.S. Pareed Kaka and others v. Shafee Ahmed Saheb (2004)3 L.W.754, found that considering the question of comparative hardship, that it is not the case of the tenants that the landlord had any other premises of his own, the landlord will be put to hardship if he is not able to shift to the petition schedule premises. In this case also no other building was found to be in occupation of the landlord so as to nullify the requirement for his own occupation.

6. Evenin a case where the landlord was found running business in a joint family property when he wanted to occupy his own building on account of disputes in joint family, his claim was found maintainable and that was found so in E.Annamalai v. S.Nizar Ahmad E.Annamalai v. S.Nizar Ahmad E.Annamalai v. S.Nizar Ahmad (2000)2 MLJ.471.

7. It was also further held in A.L.O. Gopal Sah, Chennai and others v. K.P.M. Musthaffa and others A.L.O. Gopal Sah, Chennai and others v. K.P.M. Musthaffa and others A.L.O. Gopal Sah, Chennai and others v. K.P.M. Musthaffa and others (2004)2 MLJ.702, that the bona fides of the landlord contemplated under Sec.10(3)(e) of the Act need not have an acid test, creating unnecessary doubt then and there, compelling the landlord to answer each and every doubt raised by the tenant, in view of the inbuilt provisions in the Act, safeguarding the interest of the tenant, even after the eviction order is passed, provided, the conditions are not complied with.

8. So far as the failure of pleading is concerned, it was held in S. Mohammed Jamal v. Smt.Sureka S. Mohammed Jamal v. Smt.Sureka S. Mohammed Jamal v. Smt.Sureka (2002)1 C.T.C.65, that there is no need to plead specifically that landlord is not occupying any other building; pleading in rent control proceedings should be assessed in a practical manner.

9. I have gone through the judgment of the rent controller, who dismissed the plea of eviction on the ground of owners occupation also. It was found that non-production of the Rent Deed between the landlord and his father, to show that the landlord is in occupation of a premises belonging to his father only on rental basis may go against the landlord. Nowhere in the counter, it was disputed about the fact of r