Skip to content


V.S. Ahmed Thambi Maraicayar Vs. Revathi Stores by Its Partners - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1976)1MLJ307
AppellantV.S. Ahmed Thambi Maraicayar
RespondentRevathi Stores by Its Partners
Excerpt:
- .....in addition to what is provided for in section 10(3)(a). if the landlord is occupying a part of the building, whether it is residential or non-residential or whether he wants additional accommodation for residential or for a business purpose, he may apply. the wording is wide enough to enable the landlord to apply if he wants additional accommodation either for one of the purposes or for both the purposes, residential or non-residential. i do not see there is any substance in this contention.4. lastly it was contended that the building bears two separate numbers and as such is not one building. this plea was not taken in any of the courts below and at this late stage the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise it. in the result, all the contentions raised by the tenant fail and this.....
Judgment:

P.S. Kailasam, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner. The landlord sought to evict him on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. The building was purchased by the landlord in 1970 while the tenant is in possession of the premises from 21st October, 1959. After the landlord purchased the building in 1970 he filed two petitions for eviction of the tenant one under Section 10(3)(c) and another under 10(3)(a)(i) the first relating to non-residential portion and the second to residential portion. The Courts below found that the landlord had made out a case and ordered eviction. In this revision petition on behalf of the tenant, it is submitted that the landlord is not competent to maintain this application as the landlord which is a partnership firm is no longer in existence as one of the partners is dead. Secondly, it was contended that two portions are occupied by the tenant, one for non-residential purposes and another for residential purposes and one application covering both the residential and non-residential purposes is not maintainable. Lastly, he submitted that in fact the premises is not one building but two buildings and therefore the landlord cannot ask for additional accommodation.

2. Regarding the contention that the landlord which is a partnership is no longer in existence, there is hardly any material to support that contention. The defence is that one of the partners died and in his place his legal representatives have been taken. There is hardly any material to substantiate the contention of the tenant that the partnership is no longer in existence. It is also not disputed that the rent has been paid and received by one of the partners.

3. The plea that an application for eviction on the ground of requirement of additional accommodation of both residential and non-residential buildings is not maintainable cannot also be accepted, for the wording of Section 10(3)(c) is wide enough. For it states, 'A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential and non-residential, may, notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) which relates to eviction in the case of residential and non-residential buildings apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole of any portion of the remaining part of the building, to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be'. This right is available to the landlord in addition to what is provided for in Section 10(3)(a). If the landlord is occupying a part of the building, whether it is residential or non-residential or whether he wants additional accommodation for residential or for a business purpose, he may apply. The wording is wide enough to enable the landlord to apply if he wants additional accommodation either for one of the purposes or for both the purposes, residential or non-residential. I do not see there is any substance in this contention.

4. Lastly it was contended that the building bears two separate numbers and as such is not one building. This plea was not taken in any of the Courts below and at this late stage the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise it. In the result, all the contentions raised by the tenant fail and this petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Time for vacating the premises is six months from this date.


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