THILAGARAJ MATCH WORKS Vs. C SUNDARESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the petitioner in this revision. THE landlord within the meaning of the Act is the respondent herein. THE landlord sought the eviction of the tenant under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act on the ground that he requires the promises in question for the purpose of his paper business. THEre is no dispute that the tenant himself is carrying on a match factory industry in the premises in question. THE parties placed their evidence before the Controller and the Controller on assessment of the same did not countenance the case of the landlord and dismissed the petition for eviction. THE landlord appealed and the Appellate Authority came to a different conclusion and ordered eviction of the tenant. This revision is directed against the orders of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) CONSIDERING the submissions made by Mr.M.Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner herein, I do not feel obliged to dwell in detail over the merits of the same, since I am impressed that the relevant factors which ought to have weighed with the Appellate Authority for deciding the question in issue have not been adverted to and appreciated by him and I am inclined to remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. It is true that the Appellate Authority set forth in his order the ingredients of section 10(3)(iii) of the Act to be satisfied by the landlord before he could have the benefit of the order of eviction under the provision. But as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the tenant, there has not been an advertence to the relevant aspects, which stand exposed in the case, for the purpose of finding out as to whether the landlord has made out a case of bona fide requirement, but on the other hand, the Appellate Authority has approached this in a half-hearted manner and has rendered a decision summarily. I am only delineating certain factors which were brought to my notice and I am not expressing any opinion over them one way or other, since they require advertence to and adjudication upon by the Appellate Authority. There was a petition for eviction filed by the landlord in 1978. He succeeded before the Controller and as per certified copy produced by Mr.N.Sivamani, learned Counsel for the landlord, the proceedings before the Controller got terminated on 6-8-1979. The tenant seems to have filed an appeal and in the appeal, the tenant succeeded and the order of the Appellate Authority is dated 25-4-1980. The documents produced in the present case by the landlord to demonstrate that he is carrying on business relates only to the period commencing after the order was passed by the Appellate Authority in the earlier proceedings. From this it is urged that there was nothing but a dishonest intention on the part of the landlord to have the eviction of the tenant at any cost and hence the documents were obviously brought about to make out a case as if the landlord is carrying on business elsewhere. It was brought out in evidence that the landlord presented a petition before the Collector" to cancel the licence of the tenant and he could not succeed before the Collector. The matter has come to this Court by way of writ petition at the instance of the tenant. Equally so, it was brought out in evidence that there were proceedings before the civil Court wherein the landlord was anxious to obtain an order of injunction against the tenant and conversely the tenant was anxious to obtain an order of injunction against the landlord.

(3.) BONA fide is primarily a subjective element. There must exist essential ingredients to establish that the landlord has an honest need to occupy the premises in question. More than the impulse or the desire of the landlord, there must be force of personal circumstances to make out the landlord's honest need to occupy the premises in question. All the relevant materials have got to be looked into and as stated above, bona fide is very much allied and concerns with a subjective element, and has got to be spelt out by the entirety of facts and circumstances in each case. Next it is contended by the learned Counsel for the tenant that the premises in question is of a very large area, and considering the nature of the business stated to be carried on by the landlord, his claim for such a large area could not be genuine. The landlord himself has admitted that the main building itself measures 1500 square feet and apart from that, there are other rooms. Comparatively it was also brought in evidence that the landlord himself is occupying a portion of the premises belonging to his grandmother, which he says is only under a rental arrangement and when he was asked about the space occupied by him, obviously to bring out the comparison, he stated that he cannot give the measurements. It is only in this context, Mr.M.Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the tenant, brings to my notice a decision reported in SATWANT KAUR v. DHUND SINGH, (1983)3 S.C.C.638= A.I.R.1983 S.C.623 where while considering the question under Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (17 of 1950) regarding the bona fide need of the landlord, the Supreme Court took note of the nature of the business of the landlord, to find out as to whether such business requirement should necessarily be satisfied by requisitioning the entirety of premises in question in the occupation of the tenant. May be the provisions in the Rajasthan Act, permitted such partial eviction. I should not be understood to have countenanced a rule that under the Tamil Nadu Act, partial eviction could be accorded, though eviction from the premises as a whole is asked for. No contingency has arisen before me to advert to such a question. I am referring to this aspect only to say that it may be relevant on the question of bona fides and nothing more.