Skip to content


P.K. Kesavan Nair Vs. C.K. Babu Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 578 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Mad892; (1954)IIMLJ149
ActsMadras Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 - Sections 7(3)
AppellantP.K. Kesavan Nair
RespondentC.K. Babu Naidu
Appellant AdvocateB. Manavela Chowdry and ;E. Krishnamurthy, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateR. Rangaswami Ayyar, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredEllappa Naicker v. Sivasubrainaiuan
Excerpt:
- - sivasubrainaiuan'.air 1937 mad 293 (g) ). 7. applying these judicial definitions to the facts of the present case, we find that the respondent has been carrying on automobile business and towards that end he has been performing several acts like building the factory at a cost of six or seven lakhs of rupees at no......court of small causes, madras, in h. r. a. no. 490 of 1952, confirming the order of the chief rent controller in h. r. c. no. 3075 of 1952.2. the facts are: the respondent herein has constructed an automobile factory at no. 230 tiruvottiyur high road, tondiarpet, madras. in front of the premises, there is a small room measuring 15 feet by 12 feet which is now in the occupation of the petitioner, kesavan nair. this factory has been built at a cost of about six or seven lakhs of rupees and machinery have been shifted from calicut where he was carrying on his business in the name and style of malabar fisheries.the application by the respondent to the corporation of madras for the issue of the necessary licence to run the factory was refused on the ground that the room in the front.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramaswami, J.

1. This is a civil revision petition which has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in H. R. A. NO. 490 of 1952, confirming the order of the Chief Rent Controller in H. R. C. No. 3075 of 1952.

2. The facts are: The respondent herein has constructed an automobile factory at No. 230 Tiruvottiyur High Road, Tondiarpet, Madras. In front of the premises, there is a small room measuring 15 feet by 12 feet which is now in the occupation of the petitioner, Kesavan Nair. This factory has been built at a cost of about six or seven lakhs of rupees and machinery have been shifted from Calicut where he was carrying on his business in the name and style of Malabar Fisheries.

The application by the respondent to the Corporation of Madras for the issue of the necessary licence to run the factory was refused on the ground that the room in the front portion of the factory was in the occupation of some person and that the kacha roofing should be demolished and that as per the rules no portion of the factory premises should be in the occupation of another person. Thereupon steps were taken by the respondent to terminate the lease of the petitioner herein and to evict him from the front portion of the factory building by filing a petition before the House Rent Controller.

The case for the petitioner before the Rent Controller was two-fold. Firstly he contended that the factory was not built at the place in No. 230 Thiruvottiyur High Road but only at No. 41 Seni Ammal Koil Street, Tiruvottiyur & secondly that the portion, he was occupying was not required for the purpose of the business which the respondent was carrying on or had intended to carry on in the near future.

The learned Chief House Rent Controller inspected the premises and found that the automobile factory had actually been built at No. 230 Thiruvottiyur High Road and that some machinery used for automobile purposes had been erected in one of the portions of the factory. He also found that the factory referred to by the petitioner at No. 41 Seni Amman Koil Street was for the manufacture of cement blocks and tins and that these two factories are divided by means of a partition wall.

In regard to the second contention of the petitioner the Chief Rent Controller held that the automobile business was being carried on by the respondent and that the very act of building the factory at a cost of six or seven lakhs of rupees is by itself an act of tunning the business.

3. The learned Chief House Rent Controller also balanced the advantages that would accrue to the respondent as also the hardship that would be caused to the petitioner if eviction were to be ordered and came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the hardship that would be caused to the petitioner would be greater than the advantage that the owner of the factory, namely, the respondent may have if the petitioner is evicted. In this view he ordered eviction and directed the petitioner to put the respondent in possession of the room he was occupying and in appeal this order was confirmed by the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

4. The point taken in revision before me is naturally a point of law because I am bound by the findings of fact and it is once again argued before me that the respondent is not seeking additional accommodation for the purpose of the business which he 'is carrying on' but that the portion is required for the business which he 'intends to carry' on hereafter. Now, therefore, the precise meaning of the two terms 'business' and 'carrying on business' have got to be considered and fortunately for us both these terms have judicially been defined.

5. The term 'business' includes every trade, occupation and profession. According to Section 2(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, 'business' includes any trade, commerce, or manufacture or any adventure or concern of the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture. The word 'business' has no technical meaning, but is to be read with reference to the object and intent of the Act in which it occurs. The terra 'business' means an affair requiring attention and care; that which busies or occupies one's attention and labour as his chief concern; mercantile pursuits; that which one does for a livelihood; occupation; employment. (Section 2(b), Indian Partnership Act; -- 'Calcutta, Turf Club v. Secy. of State', : AIR1921Cal44 (A); -- 'Exparte Breeull', 1881 16 Ch. D. 484; -- 'A Minck v. Roshanlal', AIR 1931 Lah 390 (C).

6. According to Ramanatha Aiyar's 'Law Lexicon' (M. L. J. Office) the phrase 'carrying on business' implies a repetition or series of acts. (Per Brett J. in -- 'Smith v. Anderson', (1880) 50 LJ Ch 39). This phrase 'carrying on business' is in itself one of varying import according to as it is construed with an implied addition, so as to make it mean the whole business, the principal part of the business, any part of the business or that part of the business which may properly be supposed to have been contemplated. It has in the English Courts been interpreted according to the context and the apparent purpose of the Legislature (Vide -- 'Gocul Das v. Ganeshilal', 4 Bom 416 (E); --'Sein Done Maung v. Chidambaram Chettiar', AIR 1937 Rang 128 (F) and --'Ellappa Naicker v. Sivasubrainaiuan'. AIR 1937 Mad 293 (G) ).

7. Applying these Judicial definitions to the facts of the present case, we find that the respondent has been carrying on automobile business and towards that end he has been performing several acts like building the factory at a cost of six or seven lakhs of rupees at No. 230 Thiruvottiyur High Road, Tondiarpet, shifting of the machinery from Calicut and applying for the issue of licence to the Corporation of Madras for running the factory.

8. In such circumstances it seems clear that the contention of the petitioner in this revision petition is devoid of any substance. In the result this revision petition is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //