The court affirmed that a composite lease does not apply, supporting the bona fide need of the landlord within the scope of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Act.

ORDER

The tenant, who has suffered concurrently before the Rent Controller, as well as the Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner.

2.I have heard Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and M/s.Aparajitha Vishwanath, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the Courts below have committed a concurrent error in entertaining the eviction petition in the first place, since it was a case of a composite lease, which is exempt from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. He would further state that even otherwise the respondent was lacking in bonafides and had not occupied other vacant portions and made only therefore, the requirement for own use and occupation was clearly malafide and with an intention to some how or the other evict the petitioner from the tenanted premises.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the petition filed in RCOP, would state that the petitioner has admitted that prior to letting out the property to the petitioner, the petitioner had set up a workshop by installing machinery and raw materials for the purposes of aiding children afflicted with Polio for whom Orthopedic aids and appliances were manufactured in the said workshop. He would rely on the averments in the petition to contend that the petitioner was let out the workshop on nominal rent and therefore, it is a case of a composite lease falling outside the purview of the Rent Control Act. He would also refer to admission of P.W.1 that the machineries left behind by the respondent were being only used by the petitioner. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when it was the admitted case of the landlord that the lease was composite, the eviction petition itself should have been thrown out as not been maintainable. He would also state that the invocation of Section 10(3)(b) is also not maintainable as the respondent is already in occupation of a portion of the property and ought to have invoked Section 10(3)(c) and not 10(3)(b).

5.Per contra, M/s.Aparajitha Vishwanath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would state that the petitioner is a unit of Andhra Mahila Sabha and the petitioner works for the upliftment and welfare of children afflicted with Polio. She would state that the petitioner had requested the landlord to provide the place for manufacturing and selling of equipments, which were also related to rehabilitation of Polio affected children and children born with deformities and therefore, the petitioner’s request was favourably considered and he was inducted as a tenant. The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that it is not a case of composite lease, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the RCOP was very much maintainable and further, the respondent is in dire need of space for expansion of their laudable objects to address and alleviate the difficulties and concerns of mentally challenged persons and the Rent Controller, as well as the Appellate Authority have rightly ordered eviction, rejecting all contentions of the petitioner. She would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision.

6.Even with regard to the attack on bonafides, the learned counsel for the respondent would state that as landlord, the choice and sufficiency are factors for the landlord to decide and not for the tenant to dictate and therefore, mere non occupation of some portions will not in any manner affect the bonafides of the petitioner.

7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8.With regard to the revision petition being not m