@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Vimala, J.@mdashMerely because the landlord is owning some other premises, in which some other business is carried on, whether the landlord can be compelled to shift his business from the present rented premises to the premises of his own, where some other business is being carried on, is the issue raised in this Civil Revision Petition. In other words, whether the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, prohibits eviction of tenant from the non-residential building, by the landlord, if the members of the family of the landlord possessed some other non-residential building, is the issue raised in this Civil Revision Petition.
The tenants are the Revision Petitioners. The respondents/landlords filed a petition in RCOP No. 5 of 2008 against the tenants, seeking eviction on the ground of, (a) wilful default in the payment of rent and (b) owner''s occupation.
1.1. The said petition was dismissed, in respect of the claim made under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter will be referred to as "the Act") and it was allowed, in respect of the claim made under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
1.2. Challenging the eviction order passed, the tenants have filed an appeal in RCA No. 1 of 2013. The said appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same, this Revision Petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the respondents/landlords that the petitioners/tenants are in possession of the premises, as tenants, for non-residential purposes and they are running a cloth store in the name and style of M/s. Seemati Silks; that the petitioners did not pay the rents regularly, from the month of January 2013 and they wilfully refused to pay the rents; that the third respondent''s (Padmavathy''s) husband and the fourth respondent are jointly running a jewellery shop in the name and style of ''Thanga Malligai'', in a rented premises, and the fourth respondent has proposed to commence a separate jewellery shop in and around the bazaar locality and their landlords have filed eviction petition in RCOP No. 4 of 2008; and so the building is required for the owner''s personal business and therefore, eviction should be ordered.
2.1. The petitioners/tenants opposed the petition on the following grounds:--
"(i) There is no default in the payment of rents and the rent is being paid regularly; the respondents are remitting rents in the court every month to the account of RCOP No. 2 of 2005.
(ii) The firms M/s. Thanga Maaligai and M/s. Balaji Jewellers are the family jewellery shops of Gopalan and Sivagnanam, who are brothers; the third respondent is the wife and fourth respondent is the son of Sivagnanam.
(iii) The filing of RCOP No. 4 of 2008 is a hide-and-seek drama only to create a ground for additional accommodation.
(iv) The building bearing Door No. 65/36, which is located next to M/s. Seemati Silks, stands in the name of second respondent, Parameswari and one Sivakumar; the building namely, ''Priya Towers'' in Door No. 129 of Paramathi Road, is in the name of Parameswari and Arumugam. Therefore, the contention that the landlords have no other building is not true.
2.2. The learned Rent Controller analysed the case of the petitioners, in the light of the requirements, stated above.
2.3. Giving a finding that the fourth respondent and his father have been carrying on jewellery business in the rented premises for the past thirty years, having been an admitted fact and having not been denied by the respondents, the claim sanctioned towards additional accommodation has been upheld.
3. This order is under challenge in this Revision Petition.
4. The main contention of the petitioners (tenants) in the Revision Petition is that:
"(a) the Courts below failed to note that the landlords failed to prove the bona fides, which is a sine-quo-non for seeking eviction;
(b) the Courts below failed to take note of the fact that the landlords own several non-residential premises around the petition mentioned property;
(c) RCOP No. 4 of 2008 is the collusive petition filed by G. Sivakumar against the fourth respondent, N.S. Senthilkumar, son of Sivagnanam."
4.1. It is the specific case of the respondents (landlords) in the Civil Revision petition that the third respondent''s husband and the fourth respondent are jointly running a jewellery shop in the rented premises and that the fourth respondent is proposing to commence a separate jewellery shop around the bazaar locality; the requirement is stated to be imminent, as they were apprehensive that they may be evicted at any time pursuant to RCOP No. 4 of 2008 filed by their landlords.
4.2. It is an admitted fact that the fourth respondent and his father are carrying on business under the name and style of ''Thanga Maaligai'' in a rented premises. It is equally an admitted fact that, as tenants, they are also facing eviction proceedings in RCOP No. 4 of 2008.
5. Even though it is contended that the petition in RCOP No. 4 of 2008 is a collusive one, there is no concrete evidence to come to the conclusion that those proceedings could be collusive. Even assuming that those proceedings are collusive, when the landlords herein were running business in a rented premises and the landlords'' claim that they need it for their business purposes, the requirements to be proved only in terms of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
5.1. In order to make a claim under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the landlords have to satisfy the following ingredients:--
"1. The building should be non-residential in character;
2. The landlord should be carrying on business;
3. He should not be occupying any other non-residential business of his own in the city concerned, for the purpose of his business.
4. The landlords must satisfy that his claim is bona fide."
5.2. Out of four ingredients to be proved, the fact that the building in a question is a non-residential building and the landlords herein are carrying on business are admitted facts. It is equally an admitted fact that during the pendency of the proceedings the landlords had purchased a shop and leased it out to M/s. Siva Silks.
6. Whether that alone would dis-entitle the landlords from seeking the eviction of the tenants from own building, is the issue raised.
7. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision reported in 1993-3-L.W. 661 (Selvaraj v. Amudhavalli) wherein it has been held as follows:--
"10. The mere proof that the premises in question is a non-residential building and that the landlady is not occupying any other residential building of her own for the purpose of the business which she is carrying on would not be enough for invoking Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. But, she must show in view of Clause (e) of Section 10(3) that her claim is bona fide. In other words, any decision on the question whether the landlady deserves to be put in possession of the premises in occupation of a tenant should naturally depend upon the bona fides of the landlady''s requirement or need. The need of the landlady should be genuine."
7.1. It is the case of the petitioners herein (tenants) that the relatives of the fourth respondent, namely, the father, mother and others, are having some other premises and they are also carrying on business, therefore, the respondents herein (landlords) are not entitled to seek eviction.
7.2. It is settled law that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to the premises in which the landlord has to start his proposed new business. In the decision reported in
7.3. It is the admitted fact that the jewellery shop is located in a place, where the frontage is 8 feet and the length is 25 feet, therefore, the total extent of property available is only 200 sq.ft., There is fairness in the evidence of R.W.1 (second petitioner herein) that, if at all the business is to be expanded, then the tenants should look for some other building. The tenants herein is in occupation of a building where the frontage is 20 feet and the length is 150 feet. Therefore, when there is evident advantage to the landlords in shifting their business to a more spacious place, then the requirement of the landlords cannot be said to be mala fide and it should be construed as bona fide.
7.4. Learned counsel for the respondents herein (landlords) relied upon the decision reported in 2010-4-L.W. 821 (Mrs. Souriammal v. B. Ramesh), in order to support the proposition that a landlord can very well seek eviction of the tenant for the purpose of accommodating her son''s business and in that connection, the landlady is expected to prove that already preparations have been undertaken to set up the business. In the decision, cited supra, it has been held as follows:--
"18. The law, in my opinion is well settled that a landlady can very well seek eviction of a tenant by pointing out that the premises is required for the bona fide purpose of accommodating her sons'' business and in that connection she is expected to prove that already preparations have been undertaken to set up the business and she should also establish that she is not owning any other property within the city, other than the building in which the demised premises is situated."
7.5. The grounds taken in the Revision Petition are baseless and therefore, they are rejected as not sustainable.
In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. The judgment and decree, dated 18.11.2013 made in RCA No. 1 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Rasipuram, confirming the fair and decretal order, dated 23.12.2001, made in RCOP No. 5 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Namakkal, stand confirmed. Three months time is hereby granted to the tenants/petitioners herein for vacating the premises in question from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
