(Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1960 against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2003 and made in R.C.A.No.69 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.09.1998 and made in R.C.O.P.No.334 of 1993 on the file of (Principal District Munsif) Rent Controller, Madurai.)

The petitioner is tenant under the respondent in the demised premises. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.334 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Principal District Rent Controller, Madurai Town for eviction of the tenant under two grounds of wilful default and his requirement for own occupation. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application passing an order of eviction on the ground of personal occupation. He rejected the claim of the landlord as regards wilful default. Both of them preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-judge, Madurai) in R.C.A.No.69 of 1998 and R.C.A.No.4 of 2000. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals confirming the orders of the Rent Controller.

2. Aggrieved by the order of the Court below, the tenant has preferred this civil revision petition before this Court, while the landlord has not carried the order of dismissal before this Court. The following are the allegations succinctly found in the petition:-

2.1. The schedule building is a non-residential one which originally belonged to the father of the respondent and from whom the petitioner herein took the property on lease agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.500/- depositing a sum of Rs.7,000/- as advance. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.518 of 1989 under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Lease and Rent Control Act (in short “the Act”) for deposit of rent for every month. It is stated that the respondent herein is running a printing press near Madurai Corporation building. The scheduled premises is required for him to run the said business and hence, the tenant has to be evicted.

3. In the counter filed by the tenant / petitioner, the following allegations are found:-

3.1. There had been no wilful default on the part of this tenant. It is incorrect to state that the landlord has been running a printing press in a rented building. He has got many buildings in Madurai City. The scheduled building is not suitable to run the said business, for which he has not obtained any licence, that original owner died leaving his wife and three sons and two daughters and hence, the petition filed by this petitioner alone is not sustainable.

4. Even though it is denied in the counter that the respondent / landlord was running a printing press, the materials available on record show that he is running a printing press in a rented building. The respondent / landlord in his evidence stated that he was paying a monthly rent of Rs.800/- for the building in which he is running printing press. He has also paid a sum of Rs.6,000/- as advance and that the press is in a rented building alone. The Rent Controller after scrutinizing Exs.A.4 and 7 found that the petitioner has been running a printing press in a rented building at Sellur. Ex.A.4 is the attendance register and Ex.A.7, is the rental receipt. P.W.2, the Madurai Corporation official has deposed that the respondent / landlord has been running printing press in No.5, 20A, Azhagar Kovil Road, Madurai, that he has obtained a licence for the years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. The above said documents and other pieces of evidence would go a long way to show that the respondent / landlord has been running a printing press in a rented premises.

4.1. As far as the availability of other non-residential of buildings belonging to the respondent is concerned, it is his definite version that they are small buildings and the printing press could not be accommodated in the said buildings. This Court does not find any mala fide intention in sayi