Point of law: She has specifically come forward with a case that she is presently running a clinic in a rented premises, however, no documents whatsoever has been produced to prove the said contention either in the form of the lease deed or by examining the landlord of the said premises. The existence of a bonafide requirement is the primordial condition that is required to be satisfied in a proceedings seeking for an eviction on the ground of owner's occupation.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2016 passed in R.C.A.No.10 of 2015 by the learned Principal Subordinate Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Salem.)

1. This Civil Revision Petitions is directed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, (herein after called as Rent Control Appellate Authority) in R.C.A.No.10 of 2015, confirming the order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Salem, (herein after called as Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P.No.62 of 2013, thereby dismissing the petition for eviction on the ground of owners occupation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The case of the petitioner/landlord in brief is as follows:

3.1. The landlord filed petition for eviction on the ground of owners occupation. The case of the landlord is that the petition premises is a commercial premises and the same was let out to the tenant by his grandmother viz., Padmavathi to run automobile spares parts selling shop in the name and style of "Palaniappa Motor Cycle Parts". Originally the petition premises was owned by the landlord's grandmother and the same was purchased by her by virtue of sale deed dated 08.09.1993. Thereafter by the settlement deed dated 21.04.2011, the petition premises was settled in favour of the landlord registered vide document No.2587 of 2011. From the date of settlement deed, the landlord is an absolute owner of the petition premises and the tenant continuously paying rent to the landlord herein.

3.2. The landlord is running business in the name and style of "Palaniappa Automobiles" at No.28, C1 M.M.Road, Salem Town, Salem-6 and having godown at B-15, A.A road, Salem Town, Salem-1. Both the buildings are rental premises and the landlord is paying huge amount as rent for the shop and godown. Therefore, the landlord decided to shift his business to the petition premises which is rented to the tenant. The petition premises consists of three floors and it would be feasible for running his business. After exchange of notices, the landlord filed petition for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation.

4. Resisting same, the respondent filed counter stating that the petition premises originally belonged to one Padmavathi, who is none other than the mother of the tenant. The petition premises rented to the tenant from the date of its construction in the year 1995. Initially the respondent paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- as monthly rent and subsequently enhanced to Rs.5,000/- and from the year 2007 it was enhanced to Rs.9,000/- per month. In fact, the tenant has paid rent to his mother including Rs.1,000/- for her miscellaneous expenses.

4.1. While being so, the said Padmavathi issued notice dated 13.01.2011 to the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises, since she decided to sell the property to third person. It was properly replied by the respondent. Thereafter, the property was settled in favour of the landlord on 21.04.2011 by the said Padmavathi. Thereafter, the landlord and his father issued notice in the month of December, 2011 called upon the tenant to vacant and deliver the first floor of the petition premises, since they decided to let out the first floor of the building to third person.

4.2. Finally, the landlord issued notice dated 11.07.2012 demanding the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition premises for the reason that the landlord has proposed to shift his business to the petition premises. It was also duly replied by the reply notice dated 25.07.2012. Therefore, it is seen from the notices issued by the grandmother of the landlord and the present landlord, their intention is only to vacate the tenant and not to shift his business to the petitio