Judgment:
ORDER
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.
1. This is a revision petition by the tenant-firm against the order of the Rent Control authorities directing Its eviction from the ground floor of premises bearing door No. 33, Varadarajulu Naidu St, Hunters Road, Madras-7.
2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition in the Court of Small Causes, Madras on the allegation that the first floor of the said premises was In the occupation of the respondent and it was kept under lock for the purpose of occupying the entire building for his own use and occupation as he requires the entire building for his own use and occupation. The tenant is in occupation of the ground floor. Indeed he was already in occupation when the building was purchased by the landlord in 1966. Stating that he (respondent) was married on 16.7.1978 and that though he was staying along with his parents, he now wanted to set up a separate house and stay independently the landlord claimed that he required the entire building for his occupation.
3. The tenant's case was that the landlord was already living in a very spacious modern bungalow near his place of business and he had not shown why he wanted to abandon those premises and come and stay in a comparatively older, less convenient and cramped accommodation as the petition premises. The tenant also pleaded that considerable hardship and inconvenience would be caused to them.
4. It appears that prior to the present petition, the landlord had earlier filed a petition H.R.C. No. 338 of 1979, which, according to him, was dismissed for default and on an objection being raised, that the fresh petition was not maintainable, the Small Cause Court held that the present petition was not barred.
5. On merits, the Small Cause Court held that since the landlord was in legal occupation of the first floor of the building in question, he could not ask for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(i), but that the landlord could ask for the premises in the ground floor by way of additional accommodation. Merely. observing that the landlord wants to live with his family separately and further that the tenant had not explained in the counter statement as to how he would be suffering hardship in the event of eviction, the Small Cause Court allowed the petition.
6. The tenant-firm appealed against this order. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction. It considered the claim as one for additional accommodation and held that in view of the large number of visitors and guests, who, according to the landlord, visit him and having regard to the life the landlord was accustomed, the landlord was entitled to the additional accommodation in the occupation of the tenant. The Appellate Authority observed that it cannot be stated that the respondent should live only in the first floor which was not sufficient for the members or his guests, and therefore, the bona fides of the landlord cannot be suspected.
7. These orders are challenged by the tenant In this revision petition. When this revision had come up for hearing earlier, a reference on behalf of the tenant was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Messrs Chotlal Pyarelal v. Srikharchand : [1985]1SCR268 . That was a case, which arose out of proceedings under Clauses 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 and it was held that since the Civil Procedure Code, did not apply to proceedings under the said Rent Control Order, no application for eviction could be maintained against a firm in the firm name because the firm was merely a compendious name for the partners constituing it and it was only by virtue of the provisions of Order 30 of the Civil Procedure Code, that a firm can sue and be sued in its own name without the partners being impleaded eo nominee. The Supreme Court also observed in the same case that where a party is described by his firm name, it would be merely a case of misdescription of the party which could be corrected at any stage of the proceedings. In view of this decision, the landlord filed a petition C.M.P. N0. 12331 of 1986 for joining the partners of the tenant firm as respondents 2 to 5. This petition is allowed. However, what was necessary to be done for a proper adjudication was that the partners were required to be joined as respondents to the main petition for eviction.
8. The short argument advanced on behalf of the tenant is that since the landlord has not occupied the first floor of the building, the ground floor of which is in occupation of the tenant, the landlord's claim for additional accommodation should have been straightway rejected. It is also submitted that since the first floor has not been occupied at all, it is not open to the landlord to contend that the premises are insufficient for his accommodation. It is pointed out that the premises of the first floor are identical to the premises in the ground floor since the ground floor has fairly large amount of space and unless there is clinching evidence on record to show that for the family of the landlord, the premises of the first floor are insufficient, a case of additional accommodation could not have been established. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord has contended that the first floor has been kept vacant only because it is insufficient for his accommodation and that is why the claim for eviction against the tenant has been filed, so that the entire building can be occupied by the landlord. It is also urged that there are several guests who visit the landlord and the landlord, therefore, needs large amount of accommodation. According to the Learned Counsel, the landlord does not now want to stay with the other members of his family in the family house which belonged to his father and has devolved on himself, his sisters and mother, and there were 20 or 21 members staying in the old family house.
9. There can be no doubt that if the owner of an accommodation is able to establish that the accommodation available for his occupation is insufficient, he could bona Ode claim accommodation in the possession of his tenant by way of additional accommodation. But if this has to be done, the landlord should come out with a clear case that the accommodation available to him is insufficient for his use and for the purpose of proper adjudication of the claim of the landlord, the landlord must set out as to why the accommodation is found to be insufficient. Firstly, in the instant case, there is not even a statement in the original petition that the premises in the first floor are insufficient for his accommodation. This case is sought to be made out only at the stage of evidence and the spacious ground which is sought to be made in the evidence is that guests and relatives of ten visit the landlord and the landlord has to give a proper accommodation for them. If such a case is not made out, in the original petition, it is difficult to see how such evidence could be given at the trial. All relevant facts on which the landlord claims that the accommodation in his occupation is insufficient for his needs must be properly set out, so that the tenant knows what case he has to meet. On the vague allegation like the one made in the instant case, the landlord cannot succeed by stating for the first time in evidence that he has to make arrangements for the visiting customers and relatives. The averment in the original petition is merely that the landlord is in possession of the first floor and hence he requires the ground floor as additional accommodation so that he could occupy the entire premises for his residential use. Merely because the landlord desires to occupy the entire building for his own use, a tenant cannot j be evicted. A tenant can be evicted only if the accommodation which is already in the possession of the landlord is insufficient for his needs. In the instant j case, the evidence shows that the house was purchased in 1966. The landlord was married in 1978 and he has two daughters. Having regard to the date of his marriage, the daughters would be quite young and the fact that from 1966 onwards to 1978 or at arty time after 1978 the landlord and his wife did not think it necessary to occupy the premises would show that these premises were not even needed by them.
10. It is sought to be argued that the landlord wanted to leave the old family house only after the death of his father. The Learned Counsel, however, could not find any material to show as to when the father died. It is obvious, therefore, that the landlord had allowed the premises in the first floor to lie vacant without making any effort to occupy it and he has now come to the Court with the case that he wanted to occupy the entire building. His mere desire to occupy the entire building, cannot be equated with a need to occupy it, which he has to prove independently. The Small Cause Court and the Appellate Authority seem to have been influenced merely by the fact that the respondent has stated that he was accustomed to aristocratic way of life. Assuming that this is so, he has still to show that the first floor is insufficient for his needs by the standard by which he Is accustomed to live. Of this, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence. Accordingly, it is clear that both the authorities had fallen into a grievous error in allowing the petition. The orders of eviction passed against the tenant-firm are set aside.
11. The revision petition is allowed. The original petition for eviction stands dismissed. The landlord shall pay the costs of the tenant. Costs Rs. 500.