P SRINIVASULU Vs. SHANTHI TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 785 of 1981 and respondent in C. R. P. 1993 of 1981. There are two different tenants one of whom is the petitioner in C. R. P. 1993 of 1981, and the other tenant is the respondent in C. R. P. 785 of 1981. For purpose of convenience, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The landlord was carrying on a partnership business in iron and steel in a rented premises at Thathamuthiappan Street. He purchased the petition-building at Govindappa Naicken Street on 7-10-1978. The previous owner of the building was using the first floor for residence and was carrying on business in the ground floor. The landlord also wanted to use the building in the same way, viz., first floor for residential purposes and the ground floor for purposes of his business. The landlord occupied the first floor for residential purpose. The ground floor consisted of four shops. The landlord is in occupation of one of the shops by storing the articles relating to the iron and steel business. The landlord's case is that the shop in his occupation is too small and inadequate for the iron and steel business and he is in need of additional accommodation and the tenants in the three remaining shops should be evicted. The three shops are in the occupation of three different tenants. One tenant is carrying on business of running lorry service in one of the shops and the other tenant is carrying on the business of parcel service and the third tenant is carrying on business in kirana goods and country drugs. The Rent Controller accepted the plea of the landlord and ordered the eviction of the three tenants from the three shops. The two tenants who were carrying on business of lorry service and parcel service appealed and this was heard by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, and accepting the plea of the landlord, the eviction as prayed for was ordered and only the tenant carrying on business in lorry service has filed civil revision petition which is the subject matter of C. R. P. No. 1993 of 1981. The appeal of the other tenant carrying on business in kirana goods and country drugs was heard by a different Judge and he came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is not a bona fide one and the eviction order was set aside and the landlord has filed a civil revision petition and this is the subject matter of C. R. P. 785 of 1981.

(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant the Petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1993 of 1981, contended how the hardship caused to the tenant will not outweigh the advantage to the landlord must be specifically pleaded by the' landlord' in the application for eviction, and in the absence of such a pleading, which Is a material particular required to be furnished under Rule 11, the petition for eviction should be dismissed. The requirements of Rule 11 are ---- 1. Particulars specified in Rule 3 or 4, as far as they are applicable should be given, 2. Particulars necessary in support of the claim made in the Petition should be given.