SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Click here to view full judgement.
(2.)The suit property is a building described as door No. 21, 7th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Madras-83. It is owned by the landlady-appellant. A portion of the building is occupied by the appellant along with her three sons for the residence of the family. Another portion of the same building is held by the respondent as tenant for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. The appellant initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) by alleging that her third son Venkatesh required the premises in occupation of tenant for commencing his own business of car air-conditioning. The Rent Controller directed the tenant-respondent to be evicted. The order of the Rent Controller was upheld in appeal. However, the same has been set aside by the High Court in the revision preferred by the tenant. The landlady sought for a review which was declined by the High Court. The aggrieved landlady has filed these appeals by special leave.
(3.)The Rent Controller has held that Venkatesh, the third son of the appellant, is having a Diploma in Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration and has also undergone training in Automobile Air-Conditioning. He has, thus, experience to run a workshop in air-conditioning of cars. The landlady bona fide needs the tenancy premises for the business of her son and for that purpose she is not in possession of any other non-residential building of her own. This finding has been upheld in appeal as also in revision by the High Court. However, the High Court formed an opinion that inasmuch as the landlady was occupying a part of the same building in which teancy premises are situated, she could have sought for eviction of the tenant only under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. But as the landlady had filed the petition seeking eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, it was not maintainable and, therefore, the order of eviction was liable to be set aside.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.