ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment and decreetal order passed in R.C.A No.239 of 2017 dated 11.02.2020 on the file of VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai confirming the Judgment and decreetal order dated 04.04.2017 in R.C.O.P.No.1878 of 2015 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The respondent is the landlord and originally, seems to have approached the Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.O.P.No.1878 of 2015 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner on two grounds, viz., demolition and reconstruction and own use and occupation. For convenience, the parties herein are referred as landlord and tenant, as in the R.C.O.P.

3. The landlord before the Rent Control Authority pleaded that he purchased an extent of 1,237 square feet by way of registered sale deed dated 05.02.2014. The revision petitioner herein, being the tenant under the previous owner, was intimated of the change of ownership and the tenant attorned the tenancy and the tenant also started paying rent to the landlord. In the meanwhile, the tenant filed O.S.No.1204 of 2014 praying for permanent injunction not to evict without following the due process of law. Thereafter, the landlord filed the petition on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition and that therefore not fit for occupation, the other tenants, who had occupied the portions had vacated and only the tenant before this Court, the Revision Petitioner, is occupying the premises and the landlord seem to have obtained demolition order from the appropriate authority and the landlord had decided to demolish the property and reconstruct for own use of the landlord, who is carrying on the business in the rented building in the same street. Since the request of the landlord was not heeded by the tenant, the landlord approached the Rent Control Authority seeking eviction on the above grounds.

4. The tenant before the Rent Control Authority had stated in the counter statement that initially, it was one S. Abbas, a Partnership concern, was carrying on business in the name, M.K. Store and the said Abbas died on 08.07.2014 and the said concern being proprietory one, all the legal heirs should have been made party before the Rent Control Authority and when the said Abbas was alive, he filed O.S.No.1204 of 2014 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the landlord, i.e., the then landlord and the present landlord, who was party to the proceedings, not to evict except under due process of law. When the said Abbas died, the legal heirs were impleaded as plaintiffs, which fact was known to this landlord. Apart from that, the tenant also pleaded that the tenant, M/s M.K. Stores, which was initially a partnership firm, who is carrying on the business of manufacture of note books, under the reputed brand 'Sunflower' and distributed to the Tamilnadu Text Books and guides for the last 40 years and was seeking his livelihood. He also contend that the erstwhile owner had not initiated any proceedings for the last 3 or 4 decades of tenancy.

5. The said tenant Abbas, who became a tenant under Jathin K. Sheth and two others, who were the owners of the property for measuring an extent of one ground and 74 square feet and occupying the ground floor portion and was paying a monthly rent promptly with an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. When things were running smoothly, the present landlord after he purchased the property threatened late Abbas to vacate the premises and left with no other alternative, the said Abbas approached the City Civil Court in O.S.No.1204 of 2014. The tenant also pleaded that the landlord owns property in the same area and he has not stated that as to how the present portion is required for his own use and the tenant pleaded for dismissal of the petition.

6. The learned Rent Control Authority by order dated 04.04.2017 in RCOP NO.1878 of 2015 while holding eviction on the ground of additional accommodation against the landlord, allowed t