Judgment:
ORDER
AR. Lakshmanan, J.
1. The revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased landlord B. Ramaswami Chettiar, who is the owner of the property in question. The 1st respondent is the tenant represented by its partner K.S. Muthu Mudaliar. Respondents 2 and 3 were brought on record when the appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority.
2. The landlord filed a petition for eviction against the 1st respondent/ tenant under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also for additional accommodation for the business needs of the landlord's wife and son. The 1st respondent is a tenant in respect of Door No. 19-B, D.P.C. Lane, Bazaar Street, Salem Town. Both the authorities below have rejected the petition filed by the landlord. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. In this Court, the petitioners have confined their claim only with regard to additional accommodation. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not advanced any argument on the finding of the authorities below with regard to Section 10(2)(1) of the Act.
4. It is the specific case of the landlord that Door No. 19-B, which is under the occupation of the 1st respondent, is required for the business needs of his wife and son/ petitioners herein. The landlord sent a notice prior to the filing of the eviction petition. The tenant sent a reply denying the allegations, to which the landlord sent another reply notice specifically stating that he requires the premises in question as additional accommodation for his own purposes viz., for the business needs of his wife and son. To this notice, the tenant sent a rejoinder alleging for the first time that there is a rent advance of Rs. 5,000 with the landlord and that the claim is not bona fide. In paragraph 10 of the eviction petition, a specific averment has been made in regard to the claim of the landlord for additional accommodation. It is stated that the landlord's wife and son are partners of two businesses which are being carried on at No. 388, Bazaar Street, Salem-1 and both the businesses are in respect of wholesale cloth under the name and Style of BRS Trust and B. Ramaswami Chettiar & Sons. Under both the concerns, the landlord's wife and son are buying handloom cloth in large quantities from the local market and send it to out-station centers. In the course of their business, they require a large area for stocking their goods. Since the shop in which they are carrying on business is a small one, they are not able to store the entire stock. Besides, the said shop is a rented one and the owner of the shop is pressing the landlord's wife and son to vacate the shop and handover vacant possession. In the circumstances, the landlord was obliged to have possession of the petition premises for the premises for the purposes of the business of his wife and son.
5. Door No. 19-B, which is the subject matter of the rent control proceedings, is part of the building in which the landlord is already residing viz., Door No. 19, and therefore, the same is required by way of additional accommodation for the business of his wife and son to carry on their business and to stock the goods.
6. The tenant filed a counter statement denying the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation. According to the tenant, the building is not required for the purpose of carrying on the business of the landlord's wife and son and that the landlord can stock his goods in Door No. 19 itself, which is a big building and which can accommodate any amount of textile goods. It is also stated that the building in the possession of the tenant viz., Door No. 19-B is a small shop of an extent of 6' x 8' and therefore, the said building is not sufficient for the landlord to carry on their business and that the building which is already under the occupation of the landlord's wife and son viz., Door No. 388, Bazaar Road, is more than sufficient.
7. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord's son R. Srinivasan was examined as P.W.1. On the side of the respondent/ tenant, he examined himself as R. W.1. The landlord did not file any document. The tenant filed Exs.B-1 to B-8. For the reasons recorded, the Rent Controller rejected the petition of the landlord. On appeal, the same was confirmed. Aggrieved against the same, the legal representatives of the landlord have come to this Court by way of this revision.
8. The only point which arises for consideration is,
Whether the requirement of the landlord by way of additional accommodation for the business needs of his wife and son/petitioners herein is bona fide or not?
9. The landlord's son who was examined as P.W.1 has deposed that in Door No. 388, he and his mother are carrying on business under the name and style of BRS Trust and B. Ramaswami Chettiar and Sons and that the business is carried on in a rented building owned by one V. Sulochana. In regard to additional accommodation, he said that Door No. 19-B, which is under the occupation of the tenant, is required for the purpose of his business needs. It is the specific case of the landlord that in Door No. 19-A, P.W. 1 and nine others are carrying on business in partnership. He denied that the eviction is sought only as a rouse to get enhanced rent. Nothing is elicited from P.W.1 to discredit his testimony in regard to his claim of running business in partnership with others in Door No. 19-A.
10. The tenant as R.W.1 has simply stated in his evidence that Door No. 19-A has been leased out to one Gourisankar Finance for a monthly rent of Rs. 200 and that the landlord can store textile goods, etc., in Door No. 19 itself and that Door No. 388, Bazaar Street is more than sufficient for the purpose of his business.
11. As rightly pointed out by Mr. B.T. Seshadri, it is not for the tenant to dictate that the area which is sought to be required by way of additional accommodation is not sufficient for the purposes of his business. Both the authorities below have mis-directed themselves when they decided the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord. As rightly urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is not for the authorities below to decide as to whether the claim of the landlord for additional accommodation and whether the extent available is sufficient for the purpose of his business or not. I have carefully gone through the petition, counter and the evidence adduced by both the parties. In my view, there is no justification for the authorities below for rejecting the case of the landlord for additional accommodation. In this case, there is no dispute that the landlord's son is carrying on business in partnership with others in a rented building viz., at Door No. 388, Bazaar Road. It is also not in dispute and as could be seen from the oral evidence, that the landlord's son is carrying on a partnership business in Door No. 19-A. Under such circumstances, it is difficult for me to appreciate the reasoning of the Rent Controller, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, that the landlord can search for better place for his son's business, that the accommodation available with the tenant is not sufficient, etc. This only shows the highly practical approach to the problem faced by the landlord.
12. It is no doubt true that the tenant will have to be ousted from Door No. 19-B if a decree for eviction is passed. But, such an event would happen whenever a decree for eviction is passed. This by itself would not be a valid ground for refusing the landlord an order for eviction. In deciding the extent of the hardship that may be caused to one party or the other in case a decree for eviction is passed or is refused, each party has to prove its relative advantages or disadvantages and the entire onus cannot be thrown on the landlord to prove that lesser disadvantages will be suffered by the tenant and that they were remediable. In the instant case, it has been clearly established that the landlord has not only a genuine requirement to possess the shop let out to the tenant but it is necessary for him to do so in order to carry on the business of his wife and son in order to augment their income and maintain themselves properly. Being the owner of the premises, he cannot be denied eviction and be compelled to occupy a rented building merely to enable the tenant to carry on his business at the cost of the landlord. This shows the great prejudice that will be caused to the landlord if his petition is dismissed.
13. The above view has been taken by the Supreme court in the decision reported in Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan : [1979]2SCR1 , which was followed by V. Ratnam, J. as he then was, in the decision reported in P. Ramamoorthi v. N.R. Pattari Chettiar : (1979)2MLJ485 . The learned Judge said that a consideration of the circumstances as revealed by the evidence in that case discloses that the tenants would not suffer any disadvantage at all by an order of eviction being passed against them since they can always shift their business to similar accommodation which was available in the locality and the securing of other accommodation cannot be considered to be hardship that would outweigh the advantage to the landlord by an order for eviction in his favour. However, in the instant case, both the authorities below have taken a contrary view, which is totally incorrect and therefore it calls for interference in this revision.
14. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the landlord has clearly proved that the premises bearing Door No. 19-A is being occupied by the landlord's son as a partner of Gourisankar Finance and that the authorities below have failed to notice that the possession of the partnership firm, in which the landlord's son is a partner is the possession of the petitioners and it cannot be said that it has been let out to a third party. The learned Counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that when the petitioners can accommodate their business in their own place, it is not for the tenant to state that the petitioners are comfortable in their demised premises. The authorities below have also not found that similar accommodation is not available in the locality for the tenant. The other reasons assigned by the authorities below in rejecting the eviction petition are unsustainable.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed and the orders of the authorities below ae set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. The respondents are given three months time from to-day to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the petitioners herein subject to the respondents filing an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks from to-day to that effect failing which the petitioners are at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law.