D.K. Sethu Madhavan v. M. Thathuvamoorthy

petition against the revision petitioner/tenant directing him tovacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition property tothe petitioner, on the ground of owner's occupation to enable hisdaughter to carry on business related to telephone booth togetherwith STD/ISD and PCO facilities. The landlord's daughter is aB.A.Graduate and unemployed. The landlord has applied to theDepartment of Telecommunication, Madras Telephone North West areathrough application No.4121, dated 09.02.1996 under registrationNo.7/KGI-II-STD-PT-19.02.1996 for setting up of the business at thepetition premises, namely, Shop No.3 in the Ground floor of thepremises No.136, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys, Madras-600 010.3.The landlord further submitted that the revision petitioner isthe tenant occupying the petition premises on a monthly rent ofRs.750/- excluding the electricity charges. The total extent ofpetition premises is 10 Feet X 12 Feet and situated on the main road.The tenant had also agreed to vacate and hand over the possessionbefore March, 1996. On the contrary, he has filed O.S.No.4568 of1996 for injunction as if the landlord is interfering with hispossession and enjoyment of the petition premises. Hence, thelandlord has filed the eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii)of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act.4.The revision petitioner/tenant has filed a counter statementand has denied the averments made in the petition filed by thelandlord. It was submitted that the averments made by the landlordthat the petitioner's shop is required for his daughter is notbonafide. The landlord has not taken any steps to initiate suchbusiness and moreover the said STD business is not suitable forladies since the telephone booth/STD/ISD/PCO are usually kept openfor business till late in the night. The reason given by thelandlord is merely to evict the tenant and let out the portion for ahigher rent. On 29.03.1996, the tenant was forced to file a criminalcomplaint against the landlord since the landlord attempted todispossess the tenant of the said premises. Hence, the tenant wasforced to file a civil suit.5.The tenant further submitted that the landlord could notachieve his malafide motive of dispossessing the tenant, by force,from the petition shop. Now, the landlord has filed this petition,belatedly, with a view to evict the tenant. Further, the landlordhas refused to receive rent from the month of February, 1996 onwardsand therefore the tenant had filed R.C.O.P.No.840 of 1996 fordepositing the rent into the Court under Section 8(5) of the RentControl Act. The tenant is carrying on business in the said premisesfor over 16 years. The tenant further submitted that the landlorddoes not require the petition shop as he is profitably employed with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Lucas-TVS. The tenant further submitted that the location of thepetition-shop is not suitable for the business envisaged by thelandlord. Hence, the tenant has prayed for dismissal of the petition.6.The learned Rent Controller framed issues and recorded theevidence of the petitioner's side as well as the evidence of therespondent's side. On the side of the petitioner, three documentswere marked namely Ex.P1, the receipt, acknowledging the applicationfor public telephone given by the petition; Ex.P2, the quotationgiven by the Carpenter to setup the telephone booth; Ex.P3, the fixeddeposit particulars taken out in the name of the landlord'sdaughters. On the side of the respondent, five documents have beenfiled namely Ex.R1, the petition copy in I.A.No.6087 and Ex.R2, thecounter statement; Ex.R3, the acknowledgement card; Ex.R4-decree ofR.C.O.P.No.840 of 1996 and Ex.R5-written statement copy inO.S.No.4568 of 1996.7.After considering the evidence of both sides and afterconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned RentController has come to the conclusion that even if the tenant vacatesthe petition premises immediately, the landlord's daughter would notbe in a position to setup the STD business immediately. Further, theRent Controller held that the tenant had been an occupant of thepetition shop for the past 16 years and had been carrying on hisbusiness and was of the opinion that if the tenant is made to vacatethe shop the tenant would incur loss. The Rent Controller was of theopinion that if the eviction petition is dismissed, the landlordwould not be put into any hardship. As such, the eviction petitionwas dismissed against the tenant.8.Aggrieved by the above order of dismissal, the landlord haspreferred this appeal. The appeal grounds and citations submittedthereof in support of the appeal are as follows:"(7) Now, the point for consideration is whether, theappeal should be allowed or not?(8) The learned counsel for the appellant/landlord wouldargue as follows: The petitioner/landlord has satisfied theingredients contemplated in sec.19(3) & (iii) of the Act.Admittedly, neither his daughter nor he is not occupyingany other non-residential building in Chennai, which istheir own, for the proposed business. Besides, thepetitioner has taken necessary steps for starting the STDBooth in the petition premises. His daughter T.Kavitha,has already applied for a Telephone Booth to the TelephoneDepartment. She has clearly stated that she wanted the STD https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Booth connection to be given to her in the petitionpremises. Ex.P1 is the receipt issued by the TelephoneDepartment for having received the application ofpetitioner's daughter. It is a document given by thePublic authority. So it is a valid and acceptableevidence. It shows her real intention and bonafide. Ex.P2is the receipt given by a concern doing the job wood workof pattern works etc. It is observed from it that thepetitioner has given an advance of Rs.5,000/- for theproposed work of making wooden partition for the posedtelephone booth. Ex.P3(s) are fixed deposit receipts fortotal sum of Rs.50,000/-. So, the petitioner has amplydemonstrated his genuine intention to start the proposedbooth in the petition premises, by taking all possiblesteps meant for the business. As the daughter isunemployed, she can very well carry on the proposedbusiness in the petition premises. It is not for thetenant to suggest to the landlord as to whether thepetition premises is fit for her proposed business or not.Once, the landlord has satisfactorily complied with theconditions laid down in the Act and taken care andnecessary steps for starting the proposed business, hisrequirement is bonafide. The need is reasonable likely toarise in future.In this connection, the following judgments are cited:(i)Organid Chemicals Ltd., Madras Vs. Venkataraman, 1997-2-LW-517, Law does not say that there should be a current andurgent need. It is enough if it is reasonably likely toarise in the future(ii)S.R.Vairevan Vs. Sundaram, 2001 (4) CTC 710Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960,Sec.10(3) & (iii) carrying on business that is – landlordor member of his family need not carry on business at thetime of filing of petition and it is enough it isreasonably likely to arise in future(9)the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant has arguedas follows:(a)The petitioner/landlord has not issued any pre-petitionnotice to the tenant, expressing his requirement of thepetition premises for starting a business. For this, thepossible explanation of the landlord is that since thetenant himself has promised to vacate the petition premises https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by March'99, arose no need for the landlord to issue anypre-litigation notice. It is not true. The landlordrefused to receive rent for February '96 when tendered. Hehas also refused to receive the rent sent by money order.That is why the tenant filed RCOP u/s.8(5) of the Act. Infact, the tenant deposited rent for certain periods in theRCOP. Against this backdrop, the landlord filed RCOP foreviction.(b)With regard to merits of the case the following pointsare raised for consideration:(i)Firstly, there was no pre-petition notice. So, thetenant cannot be taken by surprise.(ii)Though the petitioner contends that his daughter hasapplied for STD booth connection to the Telecom Department,except, a receipt, no other tangible document has beenfiled to show that the petitioner has fulfilled other pre-requisite conditions stipulated by the Telecom Department,in this regard. No document representing the payment ofnecessary charges has been produced. Ex.P1 is only anacknowledgement of receipt of application for STD boothconnection. Ex.P2 is an estimate by a carpenter forinterior decoration and Ex.P13(s) are three receipts issuedby one Devi Gold House for fixed deposits of total sum ofRs.50,000/-. These second and third documents are onlyself-serving documents and they have no evidentiary valueas such.(iii)Even before the learned Rent Controller renderedjudgment, the petitioner's daughter T.Kavitha got marriedto Mr.Vidhaya Sankar. As a married woman, she is livingwith her husband in his house. Her husband is notdependent on his wife. So, the very case of action ceasesto exist as the daughter of the petitioner, for whoserequirement the petition premises was sought for, gotmarried and left the house of her father, the landlord.(iv)The petitioner is profitably employed in a privateconcern. He admitted that he used to be away. So, hecould not attend the proposed business. (v)There is no proof that the petitioner purchased anytelephone instrument or billing meter for the proposed STDBooth. Besides, the petition premises is not ideal for theSTD Booth that too for a lady who cannot run the STD booth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ especially after 9 P.M. In fact, due to reduced rates after8 P.M. people throng the booths only after 8 P.M.(vi)In the event of eviction, the tenant will be put toirrepairable loss and great hardship – When examined, PW2,the son-in-law of the petitioner has deposed that he isliving with his parents. So there is no need for thepetitioner. Married daughter does not depend the incomefor her father's property. More despire to start abusiness is not sufficient for ordering eviction.(c)In support of the contention, the Learned Counsel forthe respondent/tenant filed the following judgments:(i)M.Lanakavel Pillai by power agent N.Sellaiyah Pillai vs.Drugs and Chemicals, Kumbakonam by its Managing DirectorT.Ramani – 1980 – II MLJ – 392.Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) ActXVIII of 1960) (as amended by Act XXIII of 1973) sections10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) – Petition by landlord foreviction and recovery of possession of premises "Carryingon business" – Meaning. "We think so "because" carrying on a business" mayconsist of a service of steps, and even if one step isproved, we do not see why the requirement is not satisfied.But, if there is no step at all whatever and the matter isonly in the stage of intention, it is difficult to bringsuch a case within the phraseology of the statute".(ii)1981 – I MLJ 40 E.Gopalan nair Vs. V.Kalammal TamilNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, section 10(3)(a)(iii) – Non-residential building – Petition for evictionby landlady – Allegation of building being required forbusiness of the petitioner's husband – Mere intention tostart business – Not sufficient for ordering eviction.(iii)P.Rengaswamy Naidu Vs. The Tamil Nadu Handloom WeaversCo-Operative Society Limited, Madurai, through theMarketing Officer.1982-MLJ 130.The application a person who was carrying on a business asHotel Proprietor. He was on that date a person who haddone business in the past as a hotel proprietor and who wasintending to do business in the future as hotel proprietor. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Such a person cannot be said to be a person who is carryingon business. To hold otherwise would be to delete fromSec.7(3)(a)(iii) the words "which he is carrying on", afunction which the Court is power less to perform.(iv)Bank of Baroda, rep.by its Chairman Vs. Mahendra Dadhaand two others 1982 – II-MLJ-85Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act deals with the condition forobtaining possession of a non-residential building. Theconditions are : (1) The building should be non-residentialin character (2) The landlord should be carrying onbusiness on the date of application for eviction (3)thelandlord should not be occupying any other non-residentialbuilding belonging to him in respect of the business; and(4) the landlord's claim is bonafide, for his businessneeds and is not founded on any indirect or oblique motivefor evicting the tenant either with a view to obtainingmore rent than what the premises, already fetched or with aview to harass the tenant in possession.AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT, 1060.A landlord will be able to evict a tenant to satisfy hiswhim by merely proving the ingredients mentioned in Se.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. If the requirement of 'claim'being 'bonafide' as contained in Sec.10 (3)(e) as construedto mean that genuineness of the need of the landlord forthe non-residential building is not be considered and thecircumstance that the landlord as the date of making theapplication is factually carrying on business and has nonon-residential building of his own in his occupation inthe city, town or village concerned is to be construedsufficient to make his claim bonafide, the tenancy of nonon-residential building will be secure.(vi) 1990 TIAD – 135Muniammal & 3 others Vs. R.Sundara Mahalingam. In theabsence of any evidence to show that the landlord has takenany action by way of step-in-aid, it may be considered thathis petition would not satisfy the requirements u/s/10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act even on the basis of the dicta laiddown in 98 LW 666. Having regard to the fact that no stepwas taken by the landlord on the date when the applicationwas filed for eviction, it is hardly possible to come tothe conclusion that the landlord has satisfied therequirements of sec.10(3)(a)(iii). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (vii)M/s.Amitkumar Amichand by Partner S.Mohanlal Vs.Jawanthraj and others, 1082 – II – MLJ -353.Allegation that son-in-law of one landlord, desired to setup a clinic – Landlords also desiring to set up independentbusiness in the premises – Landlords therefore requiringadditional accommodation – "Additional accommodation" and"carrying on business" – Meaning – Landlords held notentitled to an order of eviction. (viii)Ramesh Vs. A.Balreddy – AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 1376 –A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (1960)S.10 – Eviction petition – Landlord pleading that premiseswere required for his married doctor daughter for running aseparate Clinic – Daughter assisting her doctor husband inhis Clinic – Nothing to suggest that landlord's marrieddaughter had to depend on her father in any manner –Evidence fully establishing that landlord was forcingtenant to raise rent from time to time and was makingfurther demand which was not acceded by tenant – Held,requirement of landlord was fanciful wish and could not beaccepted as good ground for eviction(10)Thus the arguments of both the learned counsels areconcluded.(11)The question that comes up for consideration it sowhether the landlord was satisfactorily proved hisrequirement and bonafide.(12) Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) reads as follows: Sec.10(3)(a) – A landlord may, subject to theprovisions of clause (d), apply to theController for an order directing the tenantto put the landlord in possession of thebuilding-(iii)in case it is any other non-residentialbuilding, if the landlord of (any member ofhis family) is not occupying for purposes ofa business which he or (are member of hisfamily) is carrying on, a non-residentialbuilding in the city, town or villageconcerned which is his own;(13)From the above provision of law, it becomes very clearthat the landlord has a legal obligation to fulfil the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statutory conditions enshrined in the Act. First of all,he must not occupy any non-residential building of his ownfor the business being carried on either by himself or byany member of his family. Here in this case, concedingly,the landlord or his daughter for whose proposed business,the petition premises is required, does not occupy anyother non-residential building of their own for thebusiness. This fact is not in dispute. So, the firstcondition is deemed to have been satisfied.(14)Generally, if, we are to draw any succour from theenactment, then, we must admit that the provision U/S.10(3)(a)(iii) postulates existence of a business to the landlordor by any member of his family. But, the scope of thisprovision has justifiably been enlarged to include even oneright step towards the proposal of starting a business as"Deemed business" for harvesting relief under this sectionheld in the case.S.P.K.Ramaswamy Pillai Vs. Karmega Thevar 1964 – II – MLJ –89.Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18/1960)sec.10(3)(a)(iii) – Scope "carrying on a business" – It isnot necessary for the purpose of "carrying on a business"within the meaning of sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the MadrasBuildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, that theentire activity of a business should exist. Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act would cover the case where the authoritiescome to the conclusion that the demand for occupation isbonafide one and that the landlord has already commencedsome activity in connection with the starting of thebusiness.There is no reason why a landlord having the capitalready and the intention as well to do business cannot besaid to have commenced his business, though the activityrelating to it has to await the securing of accommodation.(15)In this case, the petitioner's daughter is not carryingon any business, She is yet to start a business of herchoice viz STD booth. She has proposed to start the abovebusiness in the petition premises. In furtherance of suchproposal, the petitioner is said to have some steps whichare reflected though Ex.P.1 to P3 (s). Ex.P.1 is theacknowledgement of receipt of an application for STD boothconnection, by the petitioner's daughter by name T.Kavitha. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.P.1 is undoubtedly issued by the Telecom Department.So, it is an authenticated receipt which only cogentlycorroborates the version of the land. It is but aaudiementary step for getting a phone connection. Inshort, the petitioner's daughter has already applied forthe STD Booth connection, thereby proved that a significantproper step prescribed has been taken in all sincerely.She is an educated lady. She is not debarred from applyingfor STD connection. Under Article 19(g) of ourConstitution, all the eligible citizens shall have theright to carry on any occupation, trade of business, anyavacation, subject to reasonable restrictions, publicpolicy etc. No eligible woman shall be deprived of herright to choose her career by reason of sex, caste orcreed, No gender discrimination is to be shown to anywoman. Equal opportunity is available to all. So thetenant cannot be heard to contend that she, being a ladycannot to carry on the intended business. It is upto herto decide her way of career.(16)Ex.P2 is the estimate prepared by a carpentery concern.It is a receipt, as well, for payment of an advance ofRs.5000/- made by the landlord for woodwork inside thepetition premises for the proposed business. The carpenterhas even drawn a rough sketch of the proposed wood work, tosuit to the convenience of the petitioner. In fact, thereseems to be no standard pattern for a STD booth, It alldepends upon the nesthetic sence and capacity of thelandlord to decorate the internal pattern of woodenpartition etc. So, whether the carpenter has prepared thesketch or not, there is no condition that the landlordshould prepare plan and estimate, Ex.P2 is a document givenno doubt by a private concern. But, there is no better oralternative way for the land to prove that he has taken therequisite steps. Ex.P2 is not inadmissible in evidence.There is no contra evidence to this. Besides, no othercourse of proof is available for the landlord. By itself,Ex.P12 may not be so patent to conceive a direct nexus anddeliver the goods effectively. But, read with Ex.P1, Ex.P2becomes meaningful and relevant. It is always the acceptednorms that no evidence is to be read in islolation. Thequestion is a matter of what Ex.P1 P2 will take to convinceall concerned. After all, the funds needed for theproposed business cannot be beyond the means of thepetitioner who was admitted to have been profitablyemployed in LUCAS TVS Company. Besides, Ex.P3(s) representcertain investments. It is one indication of his ability https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to mobilise the required funds. As pointed out, there isno fixed cost for the proposed business. If rich enough, aperson can install even Air Conditioner in a STD Booth.So, there is no point in saying that the act is so rigidand it is uphill struggle for the landlord to prove hisneed and bonafide. Due to advent of computer, every officegets computerised. Any device handled yesterday becomesoutdated today. So, we cannot expect the landlord toprocure all the devices and Instruments well in advance,even before his eviction petition is disposed off.Because, such investment will be a non-performing asset.Besides, they will have be kept idle. Above all they maybecome out dated in future So the requirement cannot bedoubted at every stage. In fact, Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 (s)orchestrate the requirement of the landlord stupendously.Law should not interpreted as to make the landlord to findit extremely difficult to prove his cause. In thecircumstances obtained, what could a landlord do to provehis requirement in a matter for consideration. What heshould do is an illusionary plan sought to be imposed onhim.(17)First of all, what is gatherable from the factsavailable is that the need simply exists. Based on thisground, we move up to find out whether, it commandsbonafide. A legitimate and well founded requirementcoupled with the actual and genuine need is bound to grewinto a bonafide requirement. After all, the pulse of thelandlord has to be ganged and measured in terms of decreeof bonafide, only by the use of an accepted parameter ishis every action. Here, unambiously, he took certainpossible measures to translate his intention into action.Bonafide is the result of sound blending of honest shim,purposeful requirement and a practical need. All molded inone exercise. Here, the steps taken by landlord encompassevery fact of his cause, marked by his reasonable exercise.(18)The learned counsel for the respondent would urge thatthe daughter of the landlord get since married and shebecomes a member of her husband's family and so, there isno need for the petitioner to claim the possession of thepetition premises. (19)In this regard, it is a matter of certainty that duringthe prolonged trial and litigation, some subsequents arebound to occur. After all, change is constant. In thiscontext, the certain portion from judgment of our Hon'ble https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Apex Court is extracted. In exudes an aura ofcontemplative guidance. (i)Gaya Prasad Vs. Sh.Pradeep Srivastva, 2001 – 3 – LW 124."If every subsequent development during the post petitionperiod is to be taken into account for judging thebonafides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord therewould perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunatesituation in our litigative slow process of system subsistsDuring 23 years after the landlord moved for eviction onthe ground that his son needed the building, neither thelandlord nor his son is expected to remain idle withoutdoing any work, lost, joining any new assignment orstarting any new work would be at the peril of for fetinghis requirement to occupy the building. It is a starkreality that the longer is the life of the litigation themere would be the member of developments aprouting upduring the long interrognus. If a young entrepreneurdecides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he orhis father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building,the proposed enterprise would not get faded out bysubsequent developments during the traditional lengthylongevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted,patina might stick on its surface, none the less the needwould remain in fact. All that is needed is to crase thepatina and see the gless".(20)So, notwithstanding the fact, the petitioner's daughteris married, her requirement would not become a foined one.In case, if she had been married to a person, who is not atall residing in the city, then an adverse presumption mayhave to be drawn. It is not the case of the tenant.(21)There is another contention that a lady cannot maintainan STD booth. This is not an acceptable contention.Carrying on a business by the landlord or by any member ofhis family, should not be construed so rigidly to mean thatthe business should be carried on by them, by being presentor excerting themselves all the time. Business can bemanaged by the landlord, by employing fit persons. So, itis only an oppugance just to attempt to enfeasale the caseof the landlord. Whether the daughter of the petitioner isgoing to run the booth by herself or through others is nota matter for discussion.22.Tenant has also filed certain documents before the Trial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court. They were marked as Ex.R1 to R5. They aredocuments relating to other litigations waged by thelandlord and tenant. They are not germane to the issue inthis appeal. Previous enmity, animacity or even launchingof criminal proceedings do not have any impact on therequirement u/s.10(3)(a)(iii). This issue deserves to beaddressed independently and resolved. So these documentsfail to fit into the well-knit case of the landlord. 23.As known to all, the tenant cannot dictate terms to thelandlord as to whether petition premises is not ideal ornot, for the business of the Later. Belative hardshipfinds no place in the Act. So, there is no need toconsider it. Likewise, the question of finding out whetherthe married daughter of the landlord depends upon theincome derivable from the proposed business, sought to belocated in the petition premises, is to be discussed.Married daughter continues to be the member of her father'sfamily as well, within meaning of this Act. So thepetition is quite maintainable. Other things are notrelevant for the current issue. Citations of respondentare not contributive to him on facts differ.24.Lastly, the respondent contends that no prepetitionnotice was issued to the tenant. There is absolutely nosuch mandatory provision in the Act. It is only optional.Failure to issue such notice is not at all an infirmityaffecting the case which otherwise is found to be in order.25.In the above circumstances, the landlord has establishedbonafide requirement through his evidence. So, thejudgment and decree of trial court call for interference.Accordingly, they are set aside. 26.In the result, judgment and the decree of the TrialCourt are set-aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.Time for eviction is two months."9.Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in R.C.A.No.905 of1997, by the VIII Small Causes Judge, Chennai, on 29.11.2002, thetenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.10.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended thatthe appellate Judge has totally erred in revising the consideredJudgment of the Rent Controller in directing eviction under Section10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It has been stated that the learned Judgefailed to consider that the claim in Para 4 of the main R.C.O.P. was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the requirement is for the unmarried and unemployed daughter forthe purpose of opening a telephone booth with STD, ISD facilities andthe learned Judge had failed to note that the intention for evictinghim was to commence a business and not otherwise. Subsequently, thedaughter of the landlord had got married during the pendency of theproceedings and had shifted her residence from her parents house toher husbands house and as a result, the requirement of the landlordhas totally vanished. It has been contended that the learned Judgefailed to consider that except for the evidence of the respondent asPW1, even his daughter for whose requirement, the eviction was soughtfor, was not examined to prove the bonafide requirement.11.It was also contended that the learned Judge failed toconsider that in order to evict the petitioner, the respondentillegally refused to receive the rents from February 1996 onwards,for which the petitioner was forced to resort to the proceedings inR.C.O.P.No.840 of 1996, in which the rents for the period fromFebruary 1996 to July 1996 was received on 20.08.1996. It has alsobeen contended that the learned Judge failed to consider that therespondent has only submitted an application for obtaining STDConnection but has not even paid the sum of Rs.3,000/- being theamount payable for obtaining the STD connection.12.It has also been pointed out that the learned Judge failed toconsider that the requirements cannot subsist after marriage of thedaughter, who is not dependent on the parents and as such therespondent cannot claim the premises in view of the decision reportedin AIR 1999, Supreme Court, 1376. It has also been contended thatthe learned Judge failed to note that Ex.P2 is only an estimate froma carpenter, who has not been examined and the receipt Ex.P2 has notbeen proved.13.As such, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner hasprayed to set aside the decree and judgment in R.C.A.No.905 of 1997,on the file of the Small Causes Court No.VIII, Chennai, dated29.11.2002 and confirm the decree and judgment of the learned XVIJudge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai in R.C.O.P.No.1002 of 1996,dated 04.09.1997.14.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has citedthe following Judgments:2000 – 1 – L.W.778, T.Sivasubramaniam and others. v. KasinathPujari and others, the relevant head notes of which are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and RentControl) Act (18 of 1960), Ss.10(3)(i)(a) and (e)and 25 – Bona fide requirement for his ownoccupation or for any member of his family – Merewish that the son desires to live independentlyand separately from his father will notconstitute need or requirement.When a landlord desires a premises therequirement of law is that the landlord must setout his need for the premises – He must establishthat such need is bonafide, genuine, honest andconceived in good faith – held, Pleading not madeand hence requirement is not made out –Revisional powers under S.25."C.A.No.15095 of 1996, S.J.Ebenezer v. Velayudhan and others, therelevant head notes of which are as follows:"Rent Control and Eviction – Petition bylandlord for eviction on ground of bona fiderequirement – Mere desire of landlord, held notenough – Desire must be tested objectively –Burden of proving genuine requirement, held, ison landlord.While considering the question of bonafides, what is necessary to bear in mind is thatmere desire on the part of the landlord is notenough. The desire must be tested objectivelyand not subjectively. The burden also lies uponthe landlord to establish that he genuinelyrequires the accommodation for the purpose ofstarting or continuing his own business."AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 1376, Ramesh v. A.Balreddy, the relevanthead notes of which are as follows:"A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)Control Act (1960), S.10 – Eviction petition –Landlord pleading that premises were required forhis married doctor daughter for running aseparate Clinic – Daughter assisting her doctorhusband in his Clinic – Nothing to suggest thatlandlord's married daughter had to depend on herfather in any manner – Evidence fullyestablishing that landlord was forcing tenant to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ raise rent from time to time and was makingfurther demand which was acceded by tenant –Held, requirement of landlord was fanciful wishand could no be accepted as good ground foreviction."15.The learned senior counsel for the respondent/landlord arguedthat the respondent wants to setup a telephone booth for his marrieddaughter for which he had filed an application on 09.02.1996. He hadalso obtained quotation from a wood worker on 28.02.1996 and had alsopaid an advance of Rs.5,000/- for setting up the telephone booth. Assuch, it is evidence that the landlord has taken steps to open theSTD Booth for his married daughter. The learned Senior Counselfurther pointed out that as the landlord's daughter is an unemployedgraduate the landlord with the intention of helping his daughter isin the process of setting up a telephone/STD booth to enable hisdaughter to get a reasonable income. As such, the intention of thelandlord cannot be considered malafide. The learned senior counselfurther pointed out that the order passed by the learned RentController is an erroneous one and has been passed withoutappreciating evidence given by the landlord and without consideringhis bonafide requirements. That order has been rightly set aside bythe learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Judgment andDecree has been passed by the learned Rent Control Authority onlyafter considering all the relevant grounds of appeal and respondent'sarguments. The learned senior counsel has therefore prayed fordismissal of the revision petition.16.Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases decreeand decreetal order passed by the learned XVI Rent Controller inR.C.O.P.No.1002 of 1996, dated 09.09.1997 and Judgment and decreepassed in R.C.A.No.905 of 1997 passed by the learned VIII SmallCauses Court Judge, dated 29.11.2002, and arguments advanced by thelearned senior counsels appearing on either side, this Court is ofthe view that 1.The landlord's married daughter is an unemployedgraduate. Before marriage, she was the classifiedunder the first class legal heir of the landlord.After her marriage, she has become the secondclass legal heir of the landlord. Anyhow, thefact remains that she is the natural unemployedgraduate daughter of the landlord. So, thelandlord, in order to help his daughter to get areasonable income, is in the process ofestablishing the Telephone/STD business and inproof of his intention to set up such business, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has given application to the Telephone Departmenton 09.02.1996. Following this step, the landlordhas also obtained quotation from the wood workerand in support of his contentions he has markedtwo documents as Exs.P1 and P2.2.The learned Rent Controller, in his finding inR.C.O.P.No.1002 of 1996 has only discussed aboutthe immaterial aspects of loss, which may beincurred by the parties concerned and has notgiven any finding on the material facts issue tothe case as to whether or not the requirements ofthe landlord is genuine. In the eviction petitionthe main issue to be considered is only thematerial issue as to whether the requirements ofthe landlord is genuine.17.Considering these two aspects of the case, this Court is ofthe view that the order of the learned Rent Control Authority insetting aside the order and decreetal order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1002of 1996 dated 09.09.1997 and allowing the appeal in R.C.A.No.905 of1997, dated 19.11.2002, is fair and that there is no discrepancy inhis Judgment and decree. As such, the above Civil Revision Petitionis dismissed.18.In the result, the above Civil Revision Petition is dismissedand the Judgment and Decree in R.C.A.No.905 of 1997, dated 29.11.202,passed by the learned VIII Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai, isconfirmed and consequently, the order and decreetal order inR.C.O.P.No.1002 of 1996, passed by XVI Small Causes Court Judge, isset aside. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shallbe no order as to costs. Time for eviction is six (6) months.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarkrk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1.The VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2.The XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.1 cc To Mr.P.K.Sivasubramanian, Advocate, SR.284572 cc To Mr.N.Raja Senthoorpandian, Advocate, SR.27862 CRP(NPD).No.271 of 2003ksk(co)pmk.28.4.2010.