Maintainability of the petition filed by landlord for eviction of tenant

This revision petition arises out of the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in C.M.A. No. 2 of 1975. The present petitioner, who is the landlord, filed an application for evicting the respondent who is a tenant of the premises bearing Door No. 19, Old Door No. 41 in Salia Venkatakrishna Chetty Street,Shevapet, Salem Town belonging to the petitioner. The reason for which eviction was prayed for is, that he required the premises for his own occupation. The petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined a witness, P.W. 2. The learned Rent Controller, on an appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner bona fide required the premises for his own residential purposes. But the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that there was no valid notice to quit under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. As against the decision of the Rent Controller the petitioner-landlord filed C.M.A. No. 2 of 1975 on the file of the appellate authority (Subordinate Judge), Salem. The learned Subordinate judge, on the first point, came to the conclusion that the premises was a non-residential building and as such the requirement of the landlord for residential purposes is not maintainable. Then on the second point, namely, on the question of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, he held that the notice to quit is valid. On the second point, both sides contend that no notice is necessary under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for an application for eviction under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

2. Hence the question turns on the issue whether the petitioner-landlord requires the building bona fide for his own use and whether he can claim the petition-mentioned premises, which is a non-residential building, for residential purposes. On the first point, whether the petitioner-landlord requires the premises bona fide for his residential purposes, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 will have to be looked into. The landlord, who examined himself as P.W. 1, states that he requires the building for his residence, that he is not possession of any other residential accommodation and that himself, his wife and children are residing with his mother. The respondent-tenant in his evidence has not definitely disputed the assertion of the petitioner that he is not in possession of any other premises of his own.

3. Hence the question turns only on the issue whether the petition-mentioned premises is a residential building or a non-residential building and whether the petitioner can ask for eviction of the premises for residential purposes in case the petition-mentioned premises is found to be a non-residential building. With reference to the nature of the building, we have to rely mainly on the oral evidence and the circumstances in this case. There is no rent deed. No doubt, P.W. 1 asserts that the building is a residential building. But at the same time, he says that the respondent had been conducting a sage business for 10 to 15 years. He also states that he does not know that the building is not used for residential purposes. P.W. 2 asserts that the building was let out 35 years ago for residential purposes. It is contended that P.W. 2 is the maternal uncle of P.W. 1 and as such his evidence is interested. P.W. 2 also says that from the date of letting out of the premises, he does not know whether a business was conducted in the petition-mentioned premises. As against this, we have the assertion of R.W. 1 that the petitioner rented out the premises only for non-residential purposes, that he is doing business ever since he became a tenant, that there are no residential houses in the street in which the petition-mentioned premises is situate, that there is no well, kitchen or bath-room in the petition-mentioned premises and that the assertion that the petitioner is in requirement of the premises for his residence is not true. Having