ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 passed in R.C.A.No.156 of 2013 on the file of the Learned IXth Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order of eviction made in R.C.O.P.No.2237 of 2008 dated 27.02.2013 on the file of the Learned XVth Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a petition under Section 10(3) a (iii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, seeking an order of eviction on the ground of owners occupation.

3. The case of the respondent before the Rent Controller at Chennai is that the respondent is the absolute owner of the entire ground floor of the building premises, Old No.2, New No.3, Sivagnanam Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 17 and he obtained the same by way of settlement deed executed by his father in the year 1983. Originally, the petitioner was paying the monthly rent Rs.3,500/- to the respondent. The respondent/landlord claims that he is a postgraduate in Business Management and he requires the petition premises to start a super market or retail trade in general merchant, stationery, computer accessories and to deal with the mobile phones. He has sufficient funds to start a business in the petition building and he also has a rich experience in business field since he already dealt with the distribution and wholesale business. Now he is not doing any business for want of accommodation for his retail business. As he requires the entire ground floor premises for the said business, he has to evict all the tenants in the ground floor premises.

4. The respondent/landlord further claims that the petition premises is situated in the prime commercial locality abutting Pondy Bazaar and it is the fit and proper place to carry on the above said business for earning more income. Hence, he had requested the petitioner/tenant orally to vacate the said premises. But the petitioner did not vacate the same which caused great hardship to him and he also incurred loss. Putting forth those facts, the respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.2237 of 2008 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of owners use and occupation.

5. The petitioner herein who is the tenant under the respondent contended before the Rent Controller that initially the premises was rented out for a non residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.3500/- when he was inducted as a tenant and the said premises was taken out for running a Wine Shop business under a partnership with the consent and knowledge of the respondent/landlord, wherein, he had to obtain valid licence and the landlord has given NOC. After a period of time, the said Wine Shop business was closed and now the petitioner is running a Tea Shop in the said building by obtaining necessary licence from the Corporation of Chennai. The respondent/landlord is not doing any business and as such the question of any requirement of the petition premises for his own occupation does not arise.

6. The petitioner further contended that there are various tenants in the main building and they are all in separate units and the partition wall in between the shops cannot be removed. The entire building were collapsed and hence it should be demolished. If really the respondent wants to carry on a business, the said building will not withstand and it is highly impracticable and impossible for the landlord to demolish the partition walls and make it as one unit.

7. The petitioner also contended that it is false that the petition has been filed for own use and occupation and the landlord is having and owning a building next to the petition premises, wherein, Punjab National Bank is functioning and similarly opposite to the petition premises the landlord is having another building, in which, Bank of Maharashtra is the main tenant, and the alleged requirement of the petition premises for the purpos