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.
4. There is no dispute that the first requirement has been satisfied in the instant case. With regard to the second requirement, the particulars necessary to maintain the claim for eviction are that the landlord is already in occupation of a portion of the building for nonresidential purposes and there is a bona fide requirement for additional accommodation and for that purpose wants the tenants to be evicted from the remaining Portion of the building. These particulars necessary to support the claim for eviction made by the landlord have been specifically pleaded in the instant case. How the hardship caused to the tenant will not outweigh the advantage to the landlord in case eviction is ordered is a matter in respect of which the Rent Controller should be satisfied on the basis of evidence adduced before him, before passing an order for eviction. In other words, the particulars necessary for the Rent Controller's satisfaction for rejecting the petition on the ground that the hardship caused to the tenant may outweigh the advantage to the landlord in case of eviction is not a material particular which has to be pleaded in support of the claim for eviction made by the landlord. The Controller's satisfaction for rejecting the application of landlord on the ground that the hardship likely to be caused to the tenant may outweigh the advantage to the landlord in the event of eviction order being passed in his favour does not pertain to the realm of pleadings and consequently it is unnecessary for the landlord to plead in the petition that the advantage accruing to him as a result of the eviction order will outweigh the hardship which may be caused to the tenant on account of the order of eviction. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this regard is accordingly rejected.
5. There is the concurrent finding by the courts below that the landlord is in occupation of one of the shops and his requirement for additional accommodation for carrying on the iron and steel business is a bona fide requirement and the hardship likely to be caused to the tenant will not outweigh the advantage which the landlord might obtain as a result of evicting the tenant. The concurrent finding based on evidence that the landlord's requirement of the two shops for additional accommodation is a bona fide requirement, is a finding which cannot be interfered with by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1960. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Sri Rajalakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswami Chettiar, ,
despite the wide language employed in S. 25 of the Act, this court cannot interfere with the concurrent finding of fact that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation for carrying on his business, is a bona fide one. Accepting those concurrent findings, the claim of the landlord, the respondent in C. R. P. 1993 of 1981 has to be upheld and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the landlord, the petitioner in C. R. P. 785 of 1981, contended that the landlord is storing the goods in one of the shops already vacated by the tenant and as pointed out by this court in the decision reported in P. N. Raiu Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu. , carry me on a business consists of series of steps and even if one step is proved, the statutory requirement under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) is satisfied, and as the evidence clearly establishes that the landlord is already storing articles in one of the shops in the ground floor vacated by the tenant, he is entitled to an order of eviction. In the instant case, the admitted facts are (1) the landlord is carrying on iron and steel business in a rented premises: (2) prior to the purchase by the petitioner, the first floor was used for the Purpose of residence and the ground floor was used for the purpose of business and the petitioner putting the building to the same use, has already occupied the first floor for residential purposes and one of the shops in the ground floor for storing his articles. This Court in the decision reported in P. M. Kuppa Sah v. Ra.iaram Sah, (1979) 92 Mad LW 165 has pointed out that even if the landlord keeps his things in a portion of the premises and keeps it under his control, by locking it, it is legal possession satisfying the requirements of Sec. 10(3)(c) of, the Act. As the landlord is keeping his articles in one of the shops in the ground floor vacated by the tenant, he has already taken the first step for carrying on his business in the ground floor of the petition mentioned Premises. As the landlord wants additional accommodation for the Purpose of carrying on his iron and steel business and wants the tenants to be evicted from the remaining shops on the ground floor, the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is a bona fide one. The tenant may, no doubt, be out to some inconvenience by being asked to vacate the premises in his occupation. That will not deprive the landlord of his bona fide right to require additional accommodation and viewed in this light, the order of the Rent Controller ordering eviction of the tenant has to be upheld, The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the matter may be remanded back to the Rent Controller for finding out what is the extent of the rented premises in which the landlord is carrying on the iron and steel business and whether the requirement for additional accommodation by vacating the three tenants in occupation of the shops in the ground floor is a bona fide one. As the evidence on record has satisfactorily established that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is a bona fide requirement, it is needless to remand the case to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration of the same issue. In the result C. R. P. 785 of 1981 filed by the landlord is allowed and C. R. P. 1993 of 1981 filed by the tenant stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs six months' time granted to the tenants to vacate the shops.
7. Petition allowed.