ANNAMALAI AND COMPANY, BY ITS PARTNER S.S. SUNDARAM CHETTIAR Vs. SITAL ACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who was unsuccessful in all the three Courts below is the petitioner in this revision petition. The respondent -landlady filed a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for eviction of the petitioner from her premises No. 29 , Vaduga Kaval Kooda Street, Madurai Town, which was purchased by her on 22nd December, 1967 on the ground that the same is required for the purpose of residence and business of her adult married son. The facts as found by the Courts below are these. The respondent -landlady was living in a rented house with her husband. Her son with his wife and children was living in a separate rented house in door No. 3, Mahal First Street, Madurai and was also carrying on money lending business in the said premises. Besides the house in question the respondent also owned another house in Goods Shed Street, Madurai which was also under tenancy to a third party. She filed an application for eviction of the tenant in the premises in Goods Shed Street on the ground that it was required for her own residence and also for the pawn -broker's business of her husband. The petition filed in respect of the Goods Shed Street house Was ordered and the tenant was directed to be evicted in order to provide the premises for the residence and also for purpose of her husband's business. The petition for eviction of the petitioner herein from the premises No. 29, Vaduga Kaval Kooda Street, Madurai Town was filed on 23rd December, 1968 subsequent to the order relating to the house in Goods Shed Street, Madurai Town, but before actual possession was taken by the husband of the respondent. Finding that the requirement of the respondent of the premises bearing No. 29, Vaduga Kaval Kooda Street, Madurai Town, for the purpose of residence and business of her son was bona fide the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner herein. An appeal and a revision filed by the tenant against this order of eviction were also unsuccessful and the Courts below found that the requirement of the premises for the purpose of residence and business of the respondent's son was bona fide. It may be mentioned that at the time when the appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai, was pending the tenant of the premises in Goods Shed Street, house was evicted and the respondent's husband was put in possession of the premises for carrying on his pawn broker's business. It was argued before the Courts below that since the respondent -landlady has already obtained an order of eviction and also subsequently got delivery of possession of the premises of the Goods Shed Street, Madurai Town, for the purpose of residence and her husband's business this application for eviction of the petitioner from premises No. 29, Vaduga Kaval Street, Madurai Town, on the ground that it is bona fide required for the purpose of residence and business of respondent's son is not maintainable. It was also contended before the Courts below that the money lending business carried on by the respondent's son was a partnership business and not his exclusive business and that therefore the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) were not applicable. Both these contentions were negatived by the Courts below.

(2.) IN this revision petition it is not questioned and cannot be questioned that the premises in question is bona fide required for the purpose of residence and business of the respondent's son. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner again raised both the legal contentions which were rejected by the Courts below in this petition. Before we consider these contentions of the petitioner it is necessary for us to set out the relevant provisions of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 7(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 corresponding to Section 10(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 3960 reads as follows:

(3.) LET us now consider some of the cases which have arisen under these provisions. The earliest of them is the one reported in Dr. Md. Ibrahim v. Syed Ahmed Khan : AIR 1950 Mad 556 . That was a case arising under Section 7(3)(a)of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, corresponding to Section 7(3)(a) of Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 -In that case a petition was filed by the landlord for eviction of the two tenants who were occupying the first and second floor of a building on the ground that the building was required for his own occupation. That petition was ultimately ordered and a writ petition was filed challenging the order of eviction. It was found that the petitioner's second wife was living in another building which was his own. He required the premises in question for the purpose of providing accommodation to his first wife. It was contended on behalf of the tenant that the landlord could not be said to be not occupying a residential building of his own in view of the fact that his second wife is residing in his own house. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court that "a person must be deemed to be occupying a residential building at the time of an application for eviction if any of the members of his family including dependants reside in the building with his permission and on his account, though physically he himself not be residing therein. The test is whether if he desires he cannot at any time go to reside in it."