The landlord is the petitioner herein. The landlady filed a petition for eviction against the tenant under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The case of the landlady is as under:— She purchased the petition premises from one Krishnamurthy under a registered sale deed dated 25.6.1986 The petition premises is having three Door numbers namely 7, 8 and 9. For Door No. 7 the monthly rent is Rs. 100/- and fox Door Nos. 8 and 9 the monthly rent is Rs. 100/-. The tenant is using the entire premises as a godown. The husband of the and lady is an unemployed person. The landlady is looking after her household work. Both the husband and wife now desire to start a mess in the petition premises. They are having sufficient means to start the mess. The landlady is not having any other premises of her own in the same town. Hence the landlady required the petition premises for conducting a mess under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The landlady sent a notice to the tenant on 10.11.1986, calling upon the tenant to quit derived and vacant possession. The tenant sent a reply dated 18.11.1986, refusing to vacate the premises.

2. The case of the tenant is as under:— The respondent herein alone is not a tenant in respect of the petition premises. Accordingly to the tenant he is a partner in the partnership concern with the other partner and the firm is the tenant in the petition premises. Therefore without impleading the other partners, the petitioner is not maintainable. The husband of the landlady is doing pawnbroker business. The landlady is having several premises of her own in the same town and it is not correct to state that the husband of the landlady is an unemployed person. Since the tenant refused to pay higher rent as demanded by the landlady she came forward with the present revision petition. The landlady and her husband are not having any previous experience in conducting the mess. Therefore the requirement of the petition premises by the landlady is not bonafide. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. The husband of the landlady was examined as P.W 1. The tenant was examined as R.W 1 The landlady filed 3 documents. The tenant filed 9 documents. Considering the above facts the Rent Controller came into conclusion that the requirement of the landlady under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is bonafide. Accordingly the Rent Controller ordered eviction. On appeal the Rent Control Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction. It is against this order the landlady has filed this revision before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the landlady petitioner herein submitted as under:— The Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in reversing the well considered order of the Rent Controller. For starting a mess to feed about 10 people no prior experience is necessary. So also for starting a mess of this nature permission also need not be obtained from the Municipality. To start a mess of this nature a capital of Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2000/- would be sufficient. The landlady is having sufficient funds to start the mess. In conducting the mess no employees are necessary. Both the petitioner and her husband can conduct the mess by themselves. The Rent Control Appellate Authority pointed out that in order to start the mess the landlady has not taken any steps to buy vessels and other materials. But, the fact remains that these small articles can be purchased at any time after possession is obtained from the tenant. Therefore, on this score it cannot be said that no step was taken in furtherance of starting of the mess. The husband of the landlady is an unemployed person and in order to provide employment to her husband the landlady is desirous of starting the mess. The landlady is not having any other premises of her own in the same town. It was therefore pleaded that the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority may be set aside and that the order of rent controller be restored.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant submitted as under:— The landlady has not taken any steps to start the mess as desired by her. The tenant is now using the petition premises as a godown. So much of place is not necessary for running a mess as contemplated by the landlady. The landlady has come forward with this petition since the tenant refused to pay the higher rent as demanded by her. The landlady's husband is doing pawn broker business. Therefore, it is not correct to state that her husband is an unemployed person. The landlady is having other premises of her own in the same town. No licence was obtained by the landlady for starting the mess. It was therefore, pleaded that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was correct in dismissing the petition for eviction.

6. I have heard the rival submissions.

7. The tenant contended that he is a partner in the partnership firm and the partnership firm is the tenant in respect of the petition premises. In as much as all the partners were not impleaded, the petition is liable to be dismissed. But, the fact remains that both the Authorities below have concurrently came to the conclusion that the partnership firm is not a tenant but only the individual is the tenant. No fresh material was placed before this Court to dislodge this finding.

8. The petition premises consists of three portions. The landlady purchased the petition premises on 28.7.1986 Even prior to her purchase the tenant was in the occupation of the petition premises. The tenant is using the petition premises as a godown. The landlady required the same for the purpose of starting a mess. According to the landlady she is desirous of starting a mess to feed about 10 people so that she can provide employment to her unemployed husband. The landlady submitted that she is not having any premises of her own in the same town. But the tenant submitted that the landlady is having several premises in the same town. But there was no evidence on record on the side of the tenant to prove his version. Further according to the tenant the petition premises is an old one and the portions under Door Nos. 7 and 9 are not fit for human habitation. Even though, three door numbers are given, the petition premises is a single unit. The tenant submitted that the landlady has not taken any steps towards starting the mess and according to the tenant a mere desire to start a mess would not be sufficient to show that the landlady required the petition premises bona fide for starting a mess. The tenant further pointed out that the landlady has not obtained any licence from the Municipality for running the mess. Again it was pointed out that the landlady has not purchased any vessels or other equipments for running the mess. On the other hand, the landlady pointed out that she is planning to start a mess on a limited scale to provide food for about 10 people for which no licence is required from the Municipality. She further stated that in order to start a mess of this nature a capital of Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2,000/- is sufficient and the landlady is possessed of sufficient means to start the mess.

9. In order to obtain eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act for the purpose of running a business the landlady must prove that either she is already running a business or she has taken one step in furtherance of the starting of that business. The landlady pointed out that for the purpose of starting a mess of this nature possession of enough funds is sufficient, because the articles to be purchased are not of great value. She can purchase the vessels and other equipments like mat, etc., at any time before obtaining possession since she is having sufficient funds for the said purpose. The tenant submitted that the landlady demanded higher rent from the tenant and when he refused to pay the same, the landlady came forward with petition. In order to support this version the tenant pointed out that periodically the rent was increased by the landlady. But the fact remains that there is no evidence on the side of the tenant to show that before filing the petition the landlady demanded higher rent from the tenant. Another submission made by the tenant was that the place in which the petition premises is situated was not conducive to start a mess as desired by the landlady. But, the landlady pointed out that the petition premises is situated in Tirunelvli Town in an important business centre and therefore, the present place will be advantageous for starting the mess. It also remains that it is not for the tenant to suggest that the petition premises is either insufficient or unfit for the business which the landlady is going to conduct.

10. The Rent Control Appellate Authority relied upon a decision in the case of Kanakavelpillai v. Drugs and Chemicals 19802 M.L.J 392 in order to support his conclusion that the landlady has not taken any steps towards starting of the mess and therefore, she is not entitled to an order of eviction. But, according to the fact arising in this case the landlady wanted to commence plastic business. Therefore, this court pointed out that one step in furtherance of starting the plastic industry was not taken by the landlady. But, in the same decision this Court pointed out that in a case where the landlady wanted to start a petty shop, the above said test need not be applied. Yet another decision relied on by the Rent Control Appellate Authority was that reported in 1970(1) M.L.J 249 in the case wherein this court pointed out that the mere intention to carry on business will not enable the landlord to get an order of eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. He must take one step in furtherance of the business which he is going to start.

11. According to the facts arising in the present case the landlady is not having any other premises of her own in the same town and her husband is also an unemployed person. Even according to the tenant a major portion of the petition premises is uninhabitable. According to the landlady she wanted to start a small mess to feed about 10 people so that she can earn some income out of that and in order to start a petty mess like this utensils for cooking tumblers for providing water, mats for providing sitting arrangements to the customers and leaves for serving the food alone are essential. In order to obtain all these materials the cost cannot go beyond Rs. 2000/-. According to the landlady she is possessed of sufficient means to start this petty mess. Since the mess which the landlady is going to start is petty in nature, possession of enough funds in itself sufficient to show that the landlady has taken one step in furtherance of starting the mess. The landlady further submitted that in order to run a petty mess like this, no licence is also needed from the Municipality.

In the case of S.N.K Ramaswamy Pillai v. Karmega Thevar this court while considering the provisions of S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act pointed out that.

“There is no reason why a landlord having the capital ready and the intention as well to do business cannot be said to have commenced his business, though the activity relating to it has to await the securing of accommodation.”

In the case of Maria Ammal v. Kandaswamy 1977 T.N.L.J 490 this court pointed out that

“Giving the fullest meaning to the expression, a business which he is carrying on, it is not possible to interpret the expression in the same manner in all cases irrespective of the nature of the business. Certain business may require elaborate preparation and certain other business may not require any preparation at all. For instance, the business with which we are concerned, viz. A betel-nut business does not require any elaborate preparation at all and all that is required is an intention to start the business and possession of capital. Which, admittedly, will be very small, to start the business. It is not as if, for the purpose of having recourse to the particular statutory provision, a landlord must take a building on lease from a third party and commence his business in that building and thereafter apply under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) for getting possession of his own building for the purpose of carrying on that business which will then he was carrying on in a rented building. To construe S. 10(3)(a)(iii) in that manner will be against all notions of commonsense and will not be even in consonance with the object of the Act. Certainly it cannot be the intention of the Act to prevent a landlord who, for the purpose of eking out his livelihood, wants to carry on a business of his own in his own premises from doing so.”

Considering the nature of the petty mess the landlady is going to start in her own premises and in the light of the above said judicial pronouncements cited supra, I am of the opinion that the landlady in the present case established her bona fide is requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. For the foregoing reasons I set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and restore the order passed by the Rent Controller.

12. In the result, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is sustained. Accordingly the revision is allowed. However there will be no order as to costs.

Thanikkachalam, J.

At the time of delivering the order, the learned counsel for the tenant requested six months time to vacate the petition premises. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent. On considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six months time is granted for vacating the premises from the date of this court, on condition that the tenant should file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect within three weeks from the date of this order, failing which the time granted shall stand vacated.

RR/VCS