Shree Krishna Keshav Laboratories Ltd. v. Pushpa S.Fomra & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.08.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMC.R.P.NPD.NO.1822 OF 2006ANDM.P.NO.1 OF 2006 Shree Krishna Keshav Laboratories Ltd.,43,Armenian Street,(Ground Floor),Chennai-600 001... Petitioner/Respondent. Vs.

Pushpa S.Fomra2.Kusum N.Forma3.Anita S.Fomra.. Respondents/Petitioner. This civil revision petition has been preferred under Section 25 ofthe Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amendedby Act 23/1973 and Act 1/80 against the judgment and decree of theappellate authority, VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dated02.11.2006 in RCA No.129 of 2003 confirming RCOP.No.1776/01 dated31.1.2003 on the file of the 13the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Eapen VargheseFor Respondents: Mr.B.T.SeshadriORDERChallenging the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai made in RCA No.129 of 2003,confirming the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller, XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai made in RCOP No.1776 of 2001, the revisionpetitioner/tenant has brought forth this civil revision petition.

The court heard the learned counsel on either side. Therespondents/landlord filed the petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alleging that thebuilding bearing Door No.43, Armenian Street, Chennai belonged to thelandlord; that the respondent/tenant is occupying a portion in basementfloor measuring an extent of 400 sq. ft. and a room in ground floormeasuring 2300 sq. ft. paying a monthly rent of Rs.1800/-; that therespondent/tenant is having their sales office in the premises besides https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ distributing pharmaceutical products; that after purchasing the property, the landlord informed the tenant to vacate the petition mentioned premisesfor their possession and occupation and thus, the building requires foradditional accommodation, since they are having partnership businessdealing with motors and other parts and the said business is now carryingon in a rented premises and it is a very small and tiny one and apart fromthat it would be very difficult to lift the motors and other products tothe first and second floors and under these circumstances, thepetitioners/landlord require the ground floor, which is in the occupationof the tenant and hence, he was to be evicted.

The petition was strictly resisted by the tenant, stating that therewas no bona fide need at all; that it was not needed for additionalaccommodation; that at the time when the petition was filed, a portion ofthe property in the ground floor, which was in occupation of one LakshmiElectricals, was available, since they have vacated the same and they arewith the landlord; that the first and second floors were also in theoccupation of the landlord; that if they are really in need to carry onbusiness, they could carry on the business in that portion, which was keptvacant and also in the first and second floors; and that they are actuallyhaving business in the ½ H.P. and 1 H.P. motors. Added further that in theinstant case, actually the property is not needed by them and they havegot registered office at No.123. Govindappa Naicken Street and thepetition lacks bona fide and there is no real need for additionalaccommodation, which was nothing but an invented one for the purpose ofeviction of the tenant and under these circumstances, the petition was tobe dismissed.

The Rent Controller, on enquiry, ordered eviction. The aggrievedtenant took it on appeal, which was dismissed. Hence, the unsuccessfultenant has brought forth this civil revision petition before this court.

In support of the revision petition, the learned counsel wouldsubmit that in the instant case, the petition was filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act for additional accommodation; that it could be appliedin a case where the portions, which were available in the hands of thelandlord, were not sufficient to carry on business; that they are onlydealing with ½ H.P. and 1 H.P. motors; that they have got first and secondfloors, which measures 1400 sq. ft.; that even in the ground floor, only2000 sq. ft. are available in the occupation of the revisionpetitioner/tenant and the rest were actually in the occupation of oneLakshmi Electricals and in respect of which, eviction was sought for andthe eviction has been ordered and hence, the vacant possession is in thehands of the landlord and under these circumstances, there is thoroughlylack of bona fide; that they have got their registered office in someother place, where they could run the business; that while the otherportions are available, where they could well carry on business in motors, the petition has been brought forth by the landlord, which was thoroughlylack of bona fide and hence, the order of the authorities below have gotto be set aside.

The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents/landlord, who in his sincere attempt in sustaining the orders of the courts below, has put forth his contentions, which were raised by him before the courts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ below.

After careful consideration of the rival submissions made andlooking into the materials available, the court is of the consideredopinion that the order of eviction has got to be sustained. It is not incontroversy that the revision petitioner is the tenant under the landlord. The building, in question, consists of three floors, each 2400 sq. ft. Itis an admitted position that the first and second floors are in theoccupation of the landlord. Apart from that, so far as the ground floorwas concerned, except the portion of the revision petitioner, who isrunning pharmaceutical business, the other portion, measuring 300 or 400sq. ft., was in the occupation of one Lakshmi Electricals and in respectof the same, eviction was ordered. A petition was filed originally under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act for owners occupations and the petitionwas originally ordered by the Rent Controller and the appeal filed by thetenant was dismissed. Thereafter, the tenant has preferred civil revisionpetition before this court, but in the civil revision petition, this courthas held that in a case like this, the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was not maintainable and if at all, he should have askedfor additional accommodation, for which he could file a petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and after disposal of the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the landlord filed the instant petitionunder Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, stating that they are running abusiness in a rental premises, which is tiny in nature. They are carryingon business in motor and its parts, for which the first and second floorscould not be used, since they have to lift the motors and it would be verydifficult to lift the motors and hence, they require the premises in theoccupation of the tenant, who is the revision petitioner herein.

The petition was contested by the tenant, stating that the landlordsgot first and second floors, where they could carry on the business andeven in the ground floor, a portion was also available and it could beused to carry on business.

At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that even assuming thatthe first and second floors are available with the landlord and thelandlord is in possession of the same, neither the tenant could dictatenor the landlord could be compelled to carry on business in the first andsecond floors. In a given case, the court has to test as to whether thepetition was filed with bona fide. In the instant case, the court issatisfied that the landlord has filed the petition for additionalaccommodation for bona fide requirement. It is an admitted position thatthe respondents/landlord are carrying on business in motors. It is quitenatural that if they are carrying on business in the first and secondfloors, it would be very difficult to lift all the motors and itsaccessories to the first and second floors. Apart from that, when thelandlord is having his own property, where the tenant is in possession ofthe same and if the landlord requires the same for carrying on his ownbusiness, there cannot be any impediment in allowing the landlord to carryon business in his own property. Even if the related hardship ismeasured, the court is of the considered opinion that it would be more ifthe landlord was asked to carry on business in motor either in the rentedpremises or in the first and second floors. So far as the portion, whichwas in possession of Lakshmi Electricals is concerned, the area is only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 300 to 400 sq. ft. and under these circumstances, it would not be possiblefor the landlord to carry on business in that place.

At this juncture, the contention put forth by the learned counselfor the petitioner is that it was only a desire to carry on business andit is available in the course of the petition. Now, it has to be pointedout that it was not only a mere expression of desire of the landlord tocarry on business, but has also clearly stated that two other parts are inoccupation and they require only the ground floor for additionalaccommodation to carry on business. Thus, it would be quite clear thatthey have come with the petition for the requirement of additionalaccommodation. Under these circumstances, the authorities below wereperfectly correct in ordering eviction. Accordingly, the order ofeviction is sustained. This civil revision petition fails and the sameis dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed.

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is carryingon business and he has to find out suitable accommodation to shift hisbusiness and that too in a commercial area like the property in question, where he has got reputation, the court feels sufficient time has got to begiven. Accordingly, nine months time is granted to the petitioner tovacate the premises and hand over the same to the respondents/landlord. The petitioner is directed to file an undertaking affidavit to that effectwithin a period of two weeks herefrom. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.vvkTo1. The Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. The Rent Controller, The XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.3. The Appellate Authority, The VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 2 CCs to Mr.V.Eapan Varghese, Advocate SR NO 48607+ 1 CC To Mr. B.T.Seshadri, Advocate SR NO.48648C.R.P.NPD.NO.1822 OF 2006akr[co]gp/24.