JUDGMENT
R. Balasubramanian, J.
1. The revision petition is the landlord/ petitioner in R.C.O.P.No. 2720 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras and the respondent in R.C.A.No. 491 of 1990 on the file of the Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The respondent herein is the tenant/respondent before the Rent controller and the appellant before the Appellate Authority. The eviction of the respondent was sought for on the ground of additional accommodation falling under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Controller ordered eviction and on the appeal preferred by the tenant, the order of eviction was set aside. Hence, the present revision at the instance of the landlord.
2. I heard Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. S. Subbiah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. According to Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, the Appellate Authority erred in law and on facts in reversing the well considered order of the Rent controller and therefore the order of the appellate Authority must be set aside. According to him, the materials placed before the Rent Controller by the landlord clearly establishes his requirement for additional accommodation and therefore the Appellate Authority ought to have confirmed the order of eviction granted by the Rent Controller. Opposing these submissions, Mr. S. Subbiah, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that since the landlord had come before court seeking additional accommodation on account of the expansion of the business which he is carrying on, then, in the absence of proof regarding such expansion, the requirement of the landlord must necessarily be held to be not bona fide Further in this case, the landlord had not established about the extent and scope of the business which he is carrying on; on expansion which the business is said to have undergone and the insufficiency of the place in his occupation for the said business and therefore the Appellate Authority was right in rejecting the request. The learned Counsel also argued that in all the correspondence exchanged between the parties earlier in point of time preceding the filing of the Rent Control original petition, there is no mention at all about the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation and therefore on that ground alone the order of the Appellate Authority has to be sustained. The learned Counsel would finally add that the landlord has filed this petition as a ruse to evict the tenant for one reason or other since his earlier demand for payment of the higher rent was refused by the tenant.
3. In the face of the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, I perused the order under challenge; the pleadings as well as the records. Shop No. 1 in premises No. 29, Jayalakshmi Colony, Shenoy Nagar, Madras is the subject property. It appears from the records that premises No. 29, Jayalakshmi Colony consists of the residential portion of the landlord; the business portion of the landlord and the shop portion consisting of 5 shops in the occupation of various tenants. One such shop bearing shop No. 1 is in the occupation of the tenant. The row of shops are facing the street on the eastern side. The business portion and the residential portion of the landlord in premises No. 29 is situated On the rear side of these shops. There is a road On the southern side of premises No. 29, Jayalakshmi Colony. Each of the shops has the entrance from the eastern side. To reach the residential portion as well as the business portion in the occupation of the landlord there is a gate of the southern side facing the street on the south. There is a staircase room by opening which the landlord can reach shop No. 1 from his business portion of premises No. 29, Jayalakshmi colony. The shop portion as well as the remaining portion in premises No. 29. Jayalakshmi Colony appears to be terraced. It is in evidence that the terrace of the shop portion is connected by some construction with the terraced portion of the terrace in the rear portion and the said entire first floor was let out to Garment Exporters. These are the facts not in dispute and it has come out in the evidence.
4. The landlord carries on business in a portion of the residential building situated at the rear of the tenanted premises in the name of “Sri Bhoomadevi Printers” and it is not disputed by the tenants. Stating that the portion in his occupation for the purpose of his business is insufficient and therefore he requires additional accommodation of the tenanted premises, the petition came to be filed. The relevant allegations in regard to that is as follows : “The petitioner further states that the house and premises bearing door No. 29, Jayalakshmi Colony, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai, which consists of the residence, the printing press and certain shops including shop No. 1 under the occupation of the respondent, is under the ownership of the petitioner P.A. Sundaram. There is no proper space for the printing and binding business for want of sufficient space in the building and the petitioner is unable to expand the business. It will be easy for the petitioner to expand the said printing and binding business by occupying the said shop No. 1 of the respondent as there is a right of way from the premises housing the printing press to the said shop No. 1 through the stair case room.” There is also pleading on relative hardship. In the counter, the tenant would contend as follows : “He is not aware of the ownership of the press. The shop rented to this respondent is facing east and the southern most shop in the said building which is a terraced one. On the south of the said shop of the respondent, the staircase in the building to provide access to the first floor is situated. Behind the said construction there is the residence and the said press. There are streets on the eastern and southern sides of the property and there is a gate on the southern side providing access to the residence of the petitioner and the press. The press is on the northern side of the property while the shop of the respondent is on the southern end. The reference to the shop of the respondent as a convenient additional place for occupation is not true and does not present the correct facts. The respondent denies that there are any development of activities of business which really call for additional accommodation. The requirement is not bona fide and it is not genuine.” There is pleading on relative hardship.
5. On behalf of the landlord he examined himself as P.W.1 and the tenant’s husband examined himself as R.W.1. In the context of the pleadings referred to above, I will extract the relevant portions in the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1, P.W.1 in his evidence in chief would state as follows : “I am running the printing press in the name of Sri Bhoomadevi printers. Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 are the tax receipts. In premises No. 29, the house and the press are facing south on the eastern side, there are five shops. The petition premises is next to the staircase, and therefore it would be convenient for me to go from premises and come back. If the staircase room is opened one can easily reach the petition shop. The residential area is not sufficient for my grand daughters because the machineries of the printing press are kept in my house and my family consists of six people. The residential portion and the business portion are in the same premises. Since petition premises has an easy access on the eastern side, it is required for me. “His evidence in cross is to the following effect : “From the street, the shops can be entered from the entrance on the east. From the southern side one can enter into my house. The petition shop is the last shop on the southern side of the shops facing east. The upstairs portion was let out for an export Garments company. I am running the printing press in the same place from the year 1965-66. I have three married sons. Myself, my wife, my daughter, our two daughters-in-law and grand children in all six members are residing there. The printing press business has improved. However I have not produced any documentary proof in regard thereto. The tenanted portion is very close to the staircase. To reach the other shops other than the tenanted premises, one has to necessarily go to the road on the eastern side and then only enter. “The evidence of R.W.1 in chief is as follows : “If provision is made from the house one can reach the shop. I have not noticed the expansion of the petitioner’s business so as to require the tenant’s premises. My shop can be reached only from the road side and not from any other source.”
6. The short question that falls for consideration on these pleadings and evidence is whether the requirement of the landlord under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is made out or not. The essential requisite proof of sustain they claim for additional accommodation is too well settled by various decided cases. The landlord pleaded and proved that he is in occupation of a portion of the building and the tenant is in occupation of the other portion of the said building; and he is carrying on his business there. In proof thereof he filed the following exhibits. Ex.P-12 is the permit issued by the corporation of Madras on 6.12.1966 in the name of “Bhoomadevi Printers” (Proprietrix Tmt.Jayalakshmi) for installing one motor of one horse power for printing press in premises No. 17, Jayalakshmi Colony. It is the evidence of the landlord that old. No of the petition premises is No. 17. Ex.P-13 is the licence issued by the corporation of Madras on the same date for carrying on business as printers in the said premises for the year ending 3.3.1967 with one motor of one Horse power. Ex.P-14, which is no doubt dated 13.6.1989, i.e., subsequent to the Rent Control original petition, is the licence issued by the corporation of Madras to “Sri Bhoomadevi Printers” at premises No. 29, Jayalakshmi Colony for the year ending 31.3.1990. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that right from 1966 till he gave evidence before the court he is carrying on the said business and it is not subject to any serious challenge in the cross-examination. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 that he is carrying on business in the name of “Sri Bhoomadevi Printers” in a portion of premises No. 29, Jayalakshmi colony and accordingly I hold that the landlord is in occupation of a portion of premises No. 29, Jayalakshmi Colony for the purpose of the business which he is carrying on.
7. In the Rent Control original petition, the landlord had very clearly pleaded that the premises No. 29, Jayalakshmi colony consists of the residential portion, printing press portion and the shop portion. It is his case that the business portion is not in any separate building, but it is carried on in a portion of the residential building itself. It appears from the materials that the portion where the printing press business is being arrived on lies in between the tenanted premises and the residential portion. The landlord had pleaded that his family consists of a large number of people. He had also spoken to about that in his oral evidence. In the Rent control original petition, he has also pleaded that for want of proper place some of the family rooms in the said building are being utilised for their printing and binding business. In his oral evidence he had stated that in his house there are printing press machineries. Of course, there is no specific pleading on this aspect in the Rent Control Original petition. But that does not matter according to me since he had pleaded in the Rent control original petition that for want of space some of the family rooms are utilised for his business purpose.
8. It has come out in evidence that it would be easy for him to reach the tenanted premises by opening the staircase room. The staircase being very close to the tenanted premises is not in dispute at all since R.W.1 had admitted so. Therefore, taking into account the place where the shop is situated, the staircase and the staircase room is situated and the press portion is situated, if the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 is analysed, then the requirement of the landlord appears to be bona fide The question that falls for decision is whether the landlord has established his requirement for additional accommodation. As already stated, the materials available on record establish the business being carried on in the residential portion itself and that some of the family rooms are being utilised for the purpose of the business. It is argued by Mr. S. Subbiah that the landlord had not established that his business activities had increased and therefore his requirement cannot be said to be bona fide It is seen from Exs.P-12 and P-13 that originally only one motor of 1 H.P. was permitted to be erected. But, from Ex.P-14, it is seen that the said premises is licenced to use for industrial purpose fuel or machinery of 4 H.P. As already noticed, initially there was only 1 H.P. motor was erected. Now it is 4 H.P. The increase in horse power of motor definitely indicate the volume of increase of work in the press. Unless the capacity of the press work-wise is increased, there is no need to have a 4 H.P. motor in the business premises of the landlord. In this contest, it may also be worth-noticing that Ex.P-15 dated 15.11.1989 is a communication from the chairman and the Managing Director of the Tamilnadu Housing Board to the landlord’s business. It discloses that the landlord has participated in the tender floated by the Housing Board and the rate for printing and supplying of 3,000 numbers of allottee ledgers at the net rate of Rs. 2,68,750 was accepted. Subject to the conditions noted in the tender. The landlord was directed to supply the ledgers within 30 days from the date of the receipt of that order. I have no reason to doubt this order and it is the original order. This indicates certainly that the business activities of the landlord is definitely expanding. No doubt, Exs.P-14 and P-15 are after the Rent control original petition. Though there is some cross examination on Ex.P-15. Yet I find no cross examination at all on Ex.P-14. The fact that the landlord had not produced further records to establish that they have completed the work entrusted to them under Ex.P-14 will not in any way go against the landlord while the question of their business activities is being considered. Therefore, I am inclined to believe the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P-14 and P-15 that the business activities of the landlord has definitely expanded and that the space already available with them for the purpose of the said business is not sufficient.
9. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant is carrying on business like the one which he carries on the tenanted premises at-least in three other places. The tenant in his evidence had admitted it. On going through the materials placed by the landlord as well as the tenant, the Rent Controller found that the relative hardship is not definitely in favour of the tenant if an eviction order is passed. If an order of eviction is passed it is not as though the life of the tenant would come to a grinding halt since it is established that he is already carrying on similar business in three other areas. On the other hand, the advantage to which the landlord will be put to if an order of eviction is passed, it is definitely far higher than the relative hardship the tenant may suffer at all, if any. Under these circumstances, I find and conclude that the relative hardship, if an order of eviction is passed, is not in favour of the tenant.
10. The learned Counsel Mr. S. Subbiah appearing for the tenant argued that the relationship between the parties is very much strained and that there had been at-least a couple of litigation between them in respect of the subject property. The learned Counsel for the respondent also argued that the landlord had made his intention to claim higher rent by sending Ex.P-1 which request was not acceded to by the tenant. Therefore in the context of that demand and refusal of the requirement of the landlord is tested, it cannot be anything less than a mala fide request. It is no doubt true that there is exchange of correspondence between the parties prior to the filing of the petition and they are Exs.P-1, P-3, P-4, P-6, P-10 and P-11. Simply because there has been a strained relationship between the parties resulting in some cases being filed and that the landlord expressed his mind to get a higher rent by sending Ex.P-1, it cannot be stated that the present requirement of the landlord has to be held as not bona fide, if the landlord has otherwise established his requirement made out now. In fact that cannot be a real and conclusive test to decide the right of the landlord in the present case. It is also true that in Ex.P-4, P-6, and P-10 the landlord had never set out his claim for additional accommodation. Much reliance has been placed on this omission of the landlord in not mentioning about his requirement for additional accommodation in Exs.P-4, P-6 and P-10 by the tenant as well as by the Appellate Authority to reject the present claim. I am afraid that I cannot persuade myself to countenance such an argument. In Ex.P-11, the landlord had clearly mentioned that he wants the tenanted premises for his own occupation. The appellate authority, in my opinion had placed undue reliance on these exhibits to hold that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. On the materials made before the court, I am of the opinion that the landlord had clearly established his requirement for additional accommodation and that the requirement being bona fide The materials relied upon by the learned Counsel for the tenant would not in any way go against the landlord in deciding the genuineness of his request for additional accommodation. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Appellate Authority had made an erroneous approach to the issue in controversy and that had resulted in the judgment under challenge. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments reported in Nilgiri Dairy Farm v. Manoharan , Hameedia Hardward Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1030, P. Annakili Ammal v. H.C. Hussain Hassan, 97 L.W. 116 and Yousuff Sait,& Sons v. A. Shafeeq Ahamed, 100 L.W. 278, I have perused carefully all these judgments. On the materials placed before the courts below and in view of my finding in this revision, 1 am of the opinion that the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent on facts are not applicable to the case on hand.
11. In the result, this revision is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 20.2.1992 in R.C.No. 491 of 1990 on the file of the appellate authority set aside and the order and decretal order dated 2.4.1990 granting an order of the eviction in R.C.O.P.No. 2720 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller is restored. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed and there shall be no order as to costs.