The prerogative of the landlord to choose the place for continuing their business and the tenant cannot prescribe the suitability of the premises for the landlord.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 02.09.2010 passed in RCA.No.11 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Dindigul, reversing and fair and decreetal order dated 04.12.2007 passed in RCOP.No.31 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Rent Controller, Dindigul.)1. The revision petition has been filed by the landlords challenging the order of Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller.

2. According to the revision petitioners/landlords, they had purchased the petition mentioned property on 16.09.2002 and rented out the same to the respondents for running a godown on 12.10.2002 for a period of 3 years and the said period had expired on 05.09.2005. The revision petitioners had further contended that they are running a business under the name and style of New India Pipe Stores in a rented building for the past 5 years. The landlords had orally requested him to vacate the said premises and had also issued a letter under Exhibit P4 requesting him to vacate the premises.

3. The landlords had further contended that they had issued a legal notice to the respondents on 15.10.2005 and the tenant had issued a reply on 24.10.2005 contending that he is running a business in the said premises for the past 30 years and had refused to vacate the property. The landlords had further contended that they want to shift their business to their own property and they does not own any other property in the town which is suitable for running the said business and hence, they prayed for evicting the tenant on the ground of own use and occupation.

4. The tenant had contended the he is in possession of the premises for the past 30 years as a tenant from the time of the vendor of the revision petitioners and he is running a business in agricultural products. The monthly rent is Rs.1000/- and the landlords demanded enhanced rent of Rs.1500/-. Since the tenant did not agree for enhancement, the landlords had refused to receive the September month rent and therefore, the tenant was constrained to remit the rent through money order on 13.10.2005. The tenant had further contended that the property is not required for the landlords for their own use and occupation and the landlords are having other properties in Dindigul Town for running their business. He had further contended that he is doing credit sales and he cannot collect the amount from the agriculturists if he was asked to vacate the premises.

5. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence on either side, had arrived at a finding that the tenant is running a business in a rented premises and the landlords of the said premises had asked him to vacate the premises by their notice dated 18.11.2005. Though the tenant had contended that the landlords are owning some other premises in the Dindigul Town, it has not been proved. The Tribunal further found that it is for the landlords to choose the building which is suitable for them and the tenant cannot have any say in the matter. The Tribunal further found that the landlords bonafidely required the petition mentioned premises for their own use and occupation. The rental amount was received by the landlords under protest only due to the fact that the rental agreement had expired. Based on the said findings, the Tribunal ordered eviction.

6. The Tenant filed RCA.No.11 of 2008 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority(Principal Subordinate Court) Dindigul. The Appellate Authority accepted the contentions of the tenant that the landlord did not ask the tenant to vacate the property in the year 2002 itself when they purchased the property instead they had chosen to rent out the property. The Appellate Authority had further found that Exhibit P4 letter dated 18.11.2005 said to have been issued by the landlords of the l