Two different tenants are the petitioners herein.

2. Petitions for eviction were filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and owner's occupation, under S. 10(2)(i) and S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildingds (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The petition premises is situated at Door No. 80, Bazaar Road, Saidapet, Madras 15. According to the land lords, they are the owners of the premises at Door No. 80, Bazaar Road, Saidpaet. Originally the petition premises was owned by the 1st respondent herein and his brother. Later on by exchange of properties, the first respondent herein became the sole owner of the petition premises. According to the landlord, (1st respondent herein), he is carrying on the business in a rented premises under the name and style of “S.K.S Coffee works” at No. 20, Jeenies road, Saidapet, Madras 15. The landlord is paying a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- for the said premises. According to the landlord, he is not in occupation of any other non residential building of his own in the City of Madras and therefore, he required the petition premises under the occupation of the tenants bonafide for his business.

4. On other hand, the tenants in their counter stating that they are the tenants in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 75/- respectively. According to the tenants, it is not correct on the part of the landlord to state that he is carrying on his business in a rented premises at No. 20, Jeenies road, Saidpat Madras. According to the tenants, the landlord is having several premises of his own in the City of Madras and therefore, there is no bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

5. On considering the evidence both oral and documentary, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion what there is bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and accordingly, eviction was ordered. But on appeal the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on an appraisal of facts, came to the conclusion that there is no bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Aggrieved, the landlord filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court on considering the facts arising in this case, came to the conclusion that the appellate authority failed to consider the element of bonafide in requiring the petition premises by the landlord as contemplated under S. 10(3)(a) of the Act. In order to ascertain the same, the revision was allowed and the Appeal was remitted back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Rent Controller Appellate Authority proceeded to dispose of the appeal remanded by the High Court to its file. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, both the parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary. On considering all these aspects, the Rent Control. Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. It is against this order, the present revisions have been preferred by the tenants.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted as under:— The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the scope and purport of the enquiry in a petition for eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to consider the question of bonafide as contemplated under S. 10(3)(a) of the Act. The landlord came forward with the petition for eviction falsely alleging that the tenants had committed wilful default in payment of rent. It was conclusively proved that the allegation of the landlord in that regard is false. The courts below ought to have, therefore come to the conclusion that there was no bona fides on the part of the landlord in filing the petition for eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The petition for eviction was filed with an oblique motive and the landlord does not deserve to get an order of eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The Appellate Authority went wrong in thinking that the mere establishment of the fact that the petition premises is a non residential one and that the landlord is allegedly carrying on business in a premises not of his own, is sufficient for ordering eviction. The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that there should be a need of the requirement for the landlord of the petition premises, and that such need of requirement should to bona fide. In the first instance, the Appellate Authority gave a finding that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. No fresh circumstances have been made out to enable the Appellate Authority to come to a different conclusion after remand. The landlord is owning several other premises in the City of Madras, where vacant accomodation is available and if the landlord wants to shift his business, he can easily do so, to the said premises. The premises bearing Door No. 352, Mount Road, Madras, premises No. 32, Bazaar Road, Saidapet, Madras 15 and premises No. 22, Bazaar Road, Madras 15 are admittedly owned by the landlord and there are vacant portions available therein. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the landlord's father Kandasami Mudaliar died and the mother Rukmani Ammal also died subsequently. Thus, the 1st respondent herein became the owner of the properties mentioned above and in view of the pending enquiry in the Appellate Court, the landlord and his brother manipulated and created records alleging that the first respondent herein is the exclusive owner of the petition premises.

7. In premises No. 20 Jeenies Road where the landlord is allegedly carrying on his business, he had taken the first floor and started another business ‘Sun Travel’ for the obvious reason that his alleged business ‘S.K.S Coffee Works’ was not doing well and enough space is available for carrying on yet another business. This circmustance will clearly go to show that there is no need or requirement of the petition premises by the landlord. In the cross-examination, the landlord stated that he had taken another premises at No. 24 Bazaar Road where he is carrying on a similar business. When it was suggested to him that the said premises belongs to him, the landlord did not produce any eivdence to show that it does not belong to him. The observation of the Appellate Authority that even then it is for the tenants to prove that the said premises belongs to the landlord is unjustified and untenable. Premises No. 32, Bazaar Road, which originally belonged to the mother of the 1st respondent, after her demise passed on to the 1st respondent herein and his brother. The mother of the landlord executed a Will and under the said Wiil the said property was given to the present landlord and his brother. The landlord and his brother are the owners of the present petition premises,. Under an exchange deed, the present landlord Balasundaram became the full owner of the present petition premises during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. It is not the case of the landlord that the rented premises in which he is carrying on business in insufficient for his expanding business. It was, therefore, pleaded that the Appellate Authority was not correct in ordering eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

8. On other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent landlord had submitted as under: Originally, the petition premises belonged to the 1st respondent Balasundaram and his brother Soundarajan. Hence, the petition for eviction was filed by both the brothers. Property, at Door No. 32, Bazaar street, Saidapet belonged to their mother. There mother died. She executed a Will. Under the Will, the property at Door No. 32, Bazaar Street, Saidapet was given to both the brothers Balasundaram and Soundarajan. By a deed of exchange, Balasundaram became the full owner of the petition premises at Door No. 80, Bazaar street, Saidapet, Madras. The landlord is carrying on business in selling Coffee Powder under the name and style of “S.K.S Coffee Works” in a rented premises at No. 20, Bazaar Street, Saidapet, Madras. The said premises is not sufficient to accommodate his business. Hence, he required the petition premises for his business bonafide under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. He is not in occupation of any other non residential premises of hiw own in the City of Madras. Premises at No. 352, Mount Road, Madras belongs to several sharers. The landlord is entitled to a portion in the said property at Mount Road. This property is fully occupied by the tenants. There is no space available for accommodation. No. 22, Bazaar Street, is residential house, wherein all the memebers of the family are residing. The tenants alleged that the landlord is carrying on business at No. 24, Jeenies road. But the tenants failed to prove that this property belonged to the landlord. The petition premises is situated in a commercially viable area. It would be more advantageous for the business of the 1st respondent. The landlord is unable to stock his entire goods in the rented premises at No. 20, Jeenies road. Therefore, the landlord established his bonafide in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Hence, the Appellate Authority was correct in ordering eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

9. I have heared the rival submissions. The petitions for eviction was filed under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Originally, the petition for eviction was filed by two brothers Balasundaram and Soundarajan. They are the co-owners of the petition premises situated at No. 80, Bazaar Road, Saidapet. The second petitioner is a Bank Employee. The 1st petitioner stated that he is conducting the business in selling Coffee Powder under the name and style of S.K.S Coffee Works. He is doing his business at No. 20, Jeenies road, Madras 15, which is a rented premises. According to the first petitioner in the eviction petition, he was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- Since the rented premises is not sufficient to accommodate his business, he required the petition premises for his own business bonafide under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. On other hand, the tenants submitted that the landlord is having several premises of their own in the City of Madras and even in the rented premises, there is sufficient place for the first petitioner in the eviction petition to expand his business. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition, premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

10. Door No. 32, Bazaar road, Saidapet originally belonged to the mother of the petitioners in the eviction petition. She died in the year 1992. She executed a Will and bequathed the property at Door No. 32, Bazaar road, Saidapet, Madras in favour of Balasundaram and Soundararajan. Under an exchange deed, Balasundaram surrenderd his share in Door No. 32, Bazaar road, in favour of his brother Soundararajan. In turn, Soundararajan surrendered his share in the petition premises in favour of Balasundaram. That is how Balasundaram became the full owner of the petition premises during the pendency of eviction proceedings.

11. Door No. 352, Mount Road, Madras belong to the landlord and his brothers and sisters. Hence, the landlord is having a share in premises No. 352, Mount Road, Madras. This property at Door No. 352, Mount Road, Madras was let out to tenants. The premises at No. 22, Bazaar road, Saidapet belong to the entire family. All the members of the family are residing there. According to the petitioners herein, the landlord is also carrying on his business at No. 24, Jeenies road. The tenants submitted that this property at Door No. 24, Jeenies road, belongs to the landlord. According to the landlord, it is also a rented premises. Neither the landlord nor the tenants produced any documentary evidence to show that this premises at Door No. 24, Jeenies road is a rented premises or the premises belonging to the landlord.

12. According to the tenants, at No. 20, Jeenies road, where the landlord is carrying on business, the upstair portion fell vacant. The landlord took this portion and started a new business. According to the tenants, if the landlord required any additional portion for expanding his business being conducted under the name and style of “S.K.S Coffee Works”, he could have occupied the upstair portion for the said business. But he did not do so. The property bearing Door No. 352, Mount Road, Madras is fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 5000/- in which the landlord is having 1/4th share. In the oral evidence, the landlord stated that he is unable to accommodate his goods at No. 20, Jeenies road, Saidapet. But it remains to be seen that at Door No. 20, Jeenies road in the upstair portion he started a different business other than selling Coffee powder.

13. The eviction petition was filed by the present landlord and his brother. The landlord's brother is employed in a Bank. He is also having his share in several premises in the city. In order to overcome the difficulties, an exchange deed was created during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, so as to make the landlord herein as the sole owner of the petition premises. It is stated that the tenants in the petition premises for the past 40 years are doing their business. One of the tenants is none other than the Junior paternal uncle of the present landlord. The petition for eviction is bereft of necessary averments. In the petition it is not stated that the petition premises is required since the rented premises is not sufficient for the business of the landlord. Admittedly, the landlord is carrying on business in two premises. The premises at No. 20, Jeenies road is stated to be a rented premises. So, also according to the landlord, No. 24, Jeenies road, is also a rented building, wherein he is carrying on his business. At No. 20, Jeenies road, subsequently the landlord took the upstair portion for conducting his travelling agency business. If really he required accommodation for storing his materials, he could have utilised this portion. But he did not do so. This would go to show that there is no truth in saying that the landlord required the petition premises for the purpose of storing his business materials belonging to the business which he is doing at No. 20, Jeenies road, Saidapet. In the petition it is stated that the landlord is in occupation of 100 sq. ft. in the rented premises, which is insufficient for him to store his business materials. But, subsequent to the filing of the petition, according to the tenants the upstair portion at No. 20, Jeenies Road fell vacant and the landlord took the upstair portion on rent in order to do his travelling agency business. Therefore, this subsequent event would go to show that the landlord does not require more space for storing his business materials belonging to “S.K.S Coffee Works.”

14. According to the learned counsel for the tenants, the landlord filed the petition for eviction not only on the ground of owner's ocupation, but also on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. But, both the authorities below concurrently came to the conclusion that there was no wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlord. Therefore, it is submitted that this attitude on the part of the land lord would go to show that the landlord is trying all ways and means to evict the tenants. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that there is no bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. This line of argument cannot be accepted, because wilful default in payment of rent and owner's occupation are two different grounds for obtaining eviction. The order passed under S. 10(2)(1) of the Act would not go to show that there is no bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition promises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act

15. While considering the provisions contained in S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and S. 10(3)(e) of the Act, the Supreme Court in 1988 II Law Weekly, page 1 in the case of “Hameedia Hardware Stores v. Lohan Lal Sowcar” held as under:

“By merely proving that the premises in question is a non-residential building and that the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for the purpose of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying or in any residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own, the landlord cannot in the context in which S. 10(3)(a)(iii) appears, get a tenant evicted. He must show in view of C. (e) of S. 10(3) that his claim is bonafide.

The word “claim” means “a demand for something as due” or “to seek or ask for on the ground or right”, etc. In the context of Rent Control law which is enacted for the purpose of giving protection to tenants against unreasonable evictions and for the purpose of making equitable distribution of buildings amongst persons who are in need of the min order to prove that his claim is bonafide, a landlord should establish that he deserves to be put in possession of the premises which is in the occupation of a tenant. Any decision on the question whether a landlord deserves to be put in possession of a premises in the occupation of a tenant should naturally depend upon the bonafides of the landlord's requirement or need. The word ‘claim in Cl(e) of S. 10(3) of the Act should, therefore, be construed as ‘the requirement’ of the landlord or his deservedness. ‘Deserve’ means ‘to have a right claim’ or ‘a just claim’. Since Cl(a) of S. 10(3) of the Act is also applicable to a petition filed under sub-clause (iii) of S. 10(3) of the Act is becomes necessary to examine whether the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. Otherwise a landlord will be able to evict a tenant to satisfy his whim by merely proving the ingredients mentioned in S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

If the requirement of ‘claim’ being “bonafide” as contained in S. 10(3)(e) is construed to mean that genuineness of the need of the landlord for the non-residential building is not to be considered and the circumstance that the landlord on the date of making the application is factually carrying on business and has no non-residential buidling of his own in his occupation in the city, town or village concerned is to be construed sufficient to make his claim bonafide, the tenanacy of no non-residential building will be secure. It will be preposterous to attribute such an intention to the legislature. Such a contigency should be avoided as it would be against the very object of the Act itself. The need of the landlord should be genuine. That is the object of enacting Cl. (e) of S. 10(3) of the Act. When once we reach the above conclusion it is not enough that the landlord should merely desire to use or occupy the premises. What is necessary is that he should bonafide need them for his own use and occupation or for occupation by any of the members of his family has held by this Court in A.I.R 1974 S.C, 1059 and 1974 S.C 1596”.

16. Under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act in case it is any other non-residential building if the landlord or any member of bis family is not occupying for purpose of a business, he or any member of his family is carrying on a non-residential building in the City, Town or Village concern, which is his own, the landlord is entitled to ask for eviction of the tenant under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act the Controller shall if he is satisifed that the claim of the landlord is bonafide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application. In the instant case, admittedly the landlord is having 1/4th share after partition in a non-residential building at No. 352, Mount Road. He is also carrying on his business in two premises at No. 20 and 24, Janies Road, Saidapet. After the eviction petition was filed, the upstairs portion in No. 20 Jeenies Road, fell vacant and the landlord occupied the same for different business. The landlord is also doing his business at No. 24, Jeenies Road. According to the tenant, that premises belongs to the landlord. But according to the landlord it is also a rented premises. The landlord does not want the petition premises to accommodate the business carrying on at No. 24, Jeenies Road. At the time of filing this eviction petition, the landlord was having half share in the petition premises, but after the death of his mother, under a Will he got half share in No. 32, Bazaar Road, By executing a deed of exchange he got the petition premises absolutely. Landlord's brother is an employee in a Bank. Therefore, there is no bonafide on his part to ask for possession of the petitioner under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. In order to overcome this hurdle, the exchange deed was executed. The appeal was remitted for fresh disposal in order to consider the element of bonafide as contemplated under S. 10(3)(e) of the Act. But the question of bonafide was not properly considered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. All the aforesaid facts would go to show that the landlord after filing the petition for eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, going on manipulating the circumstances in order to evict the tenants. These facts would also goto show that there is no urgent need for obtaining the possession of the petition premises from the tenants. Unless the landlord deserves to get possession under S. 10(3)(e) of the Act, eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act cannot be ordered. Thus, on a careful consideration of the facts arising in this case in the light of the judicial pronouncement cited supra, I hold that the landlord failed to establish his bonafide in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the revisions are allowed and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control, Appellate Authority in respect of both the tenants, are set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.

KA/RR/VCS