COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been preferred by the tenants.

There is no dispute in the jural relationship of landlady and tenants. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as landlady and tenants.

2.The landlady launched applications in R.C.O.P.Nos.1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1998 of 2011 on the ground that her sons Kiran Raj Jain, Dinesh Kumar Jain and Praveen Kumar Jain are carrying on business in a rented premises. According to her, her sons' business is growing in very huge volumes and therefore they are not in a position to find enough space to accommodate their goods and to consult and meet their clients. She would state that the existing rented premises in which they are currently carrying on business i.e. No.56, Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai is not suitable for expansion of the business. She also stated that she has no other buildings in the City of Chennai and existing business would be sufficient for the business purposes of her sons. Even on the date of filing of the RCOPs, the landlady was about 63 years old.

3.On being served with notice each of the tenants entered appearance and filed a detailed counter. The stand that they had taken in the counter is that there is a vacant shop in the ground floor of the premises and another shop had been vacated recently by one firm by name “Sangeetha Toys” and that there is a suppression of facts by the landlady to overcome the statutory provisions relating to additional accommodation and also that the Court has to consider the relative hardship between the eviction of the tenants vis-a-vis their continuance in the property.

4.The tenants also pleaded that the landlady is the owner of the premises in Moolakadai, Vepery High Road, Kondithoppu and several other places. They would also state that the sons themselves are owners of other premises and therefore, they are not entitled to seek for eviction. The tenants will plea that they are in occupation of the premises for more than 20 years and therefore, if the petition filed for eviction is allowed, they would be put to cause irreparable hardship.

5.The matter went to trial before the learned Rent Controller, who recorded the summary of proceedings. The Rent Controller was satisfied that the requirements of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (in short 'Act') have been satisfied and consequently ordered eviction.

6.Aggrieved by the same, the tenants filed R.C.A.Nos.712, 713, 714, 715, 716 & 718 of 2017. The Rent Control Appellate Authority agreed with the findings returned by the Rent Controller and ordered eviction.

7.Against the concurrent findings on both the bonafide requirement of the landlady as well as on the orders of eviction, these civil revision petitions have been presented before this Court.

8.When the matter came up before this Court, notice was issued to the respondent and has been listed today before me for the purpose of admission.

9. I heard Ms.Tanya Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/tenants and Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlady.

10.Ms.Tanya Kapoor launched several attacks against the findings of the Rent Controller as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. They are as follows:

(i) The landlady had vacant shop in her possession in the ground floor and subsequently another tenant has vacated the premises. The landlady's sons did not occupy the said premises, which tells upon the bonafides of the requirement.

(ii) Two shops having become vacant, the landlady is deemed to be in possession of the property and therefore, Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is not the applicable provision, but the applicable provision would be Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.

(iii) The landlady's family has other premises and therefore, it does not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

(iv) The trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court did not conside