ORDER

Challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed in RCA No.14 of 2023 by the learned Subordinate Court, Ambattur reversing the judgment and decree passed in RCOP.No.59 of 2016 by the learned District Munsif, Ambattur, the Revision Petitioner/landlord had preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

Before the Rent Controller, the Revision Petitioner, as a landlord initiated the eviction proceedings in RCOP.No.59 of 2016 under Sec.10(2)(v) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the shop in the petition schedule property for developing and continuing his business in his own premises for owner’s occupation and on the ground of nuisance. The respondent appeared in the said petition and submitted their objections. On hearing both sides, the learned Rent Controller has held that the requirement of petition premises for the own use and occupation of the petitioner to develop the stationary business and for that, the Revision Petitioner/landlord needs place to continue his business. Therefore, by relying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the vide Appeal No.9941 of 2014 in the case of Bhupinder Singh Bawa vs. Asha Devi, the learned Rent Controller had allowed the petition on the ground of own use, but not inlined to grant the relief of nuisance on 17.03.2021. Aggrieved over that findings, the tenant had preferred appeal in RCA No.14 of 2023. On analysing entire facts, the appellate authority had held that at the time of issuing notice, initially, the landlord seeking premises for repair of demised premises and subsequently, he filed a petition seeking for owner’s occupation as such is erroneous one and also held that the landlord is having many shops in that premises. Therefore, the ground raised for eviction as such is not bonafide. Accordingly, it was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner/landlord had prayed to set aside the said findings by raising the following grounds :-

(i) The first appellate court came to a finding that the owner’s occupation of the revision petitioner is not established and hence, the appeal is fit to be allowed, is illegal and contrary to the law.

(ii) The learned first appellate court misunderstood and came to conclusion that the landlord is running the stationery business in the same building, hence, there is no necessity to evict the tenant from the building premises, which is unjustifiable in the eye of law.

(iii) The learned first appellate court failed to consider that the landlord is residing in the rear portion of the building and rented out the front portion to the respondent and other two tenants to run the business, however, the petitioner/landlord failed to establish that the front portion of the building was also required for his own purpose, hence, the appeal was allowed, which is contrary to law and facts.

(iv) The learned first appellate court failed to consider that each and every rented premises is approximately comes around 100 sq.ft. totaling hardly it comes around 300 sq.ft. but the first appellate court presumed that each and every rented premises would be an extent of 300 sq.ft. So, the land not required 900 sq.ft. in total to run the stationery business in the ground floor by vacating all the three tenants, it is unsustainable in the eye of law.

(v) The learned first appellate court miserably failed to consider that the landlord issued a legal notice dated 19.04.2016 demanding the respondent evict the premises since the building would be demolished and reconstructed for his own occupation and subsequently filed case for owner’s occupation, but the first appellate court without applying mind and simply dismissed the case it is unjustifiable in the eye of law.

(vi) The learned first appellate court miserably failed to consider the fact that the respondent/tenant not established their contention of alt