Krishna Hardware Stores Vs. Srinivasaiah
 INSC 74 (6
Ahmad, M. Jagannadha Rao M. Jagannadha Rao, J.
appeal has been preferred by the tenant against the Judgment of the Madras High
Court dated 30.8.1997 in C.R.P. No. 1857 of 1992 confirming the order of
eviction passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 2564 of 1986 dated
25.1.1990 as affirmed by the appellate authority in RCA NO.229 of 1990.
eviction petition was filed by the respondent- landlord under the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control ) Act, 1960 no the ground that the non-
residential premises is required for the landlord's occupation namely, for the
partnership business of both of his sons Sekhar and Madangopal who were doing
business in a rented premises under the name and style of Sri Renuka
Enterprises. During the pendency of the proceedings, Sekhar retired from the
partnership. The business was continued by Madangopal. The appellant before us
is the tenant who is sought to be evicted. He pleaded, inter alia that the
requirement of the landlord was not bonafide and that in any event, several
other tenanted portions occupied by other tenants for business purposes fell
vacant during the pendency of the proceedings and the landlord was not acting bonafide
in not using the same for the business of his son Madangopal.
Single Judge of the High Court observed that the lower courts dealt with a
question of res- judicata and did not squarely deal with the question of bonafide
requirement. He then proceeded to deal with the question of bonafide
requirement and held that inasmuch as these two sons were carrying on business in
a rented premises, their father was entitled to sue for possession. The learned
Judge then dealt with the objection raised by the tenant that certain other
shops of the landlord fell vacant as admitted by PWs 1 and 2 and observed that
the said witnesses had explained away this difficulty by saying that those
portions which fell vacant had been given and were occupied by the
daughters-in-law and other sons, because of the non- suitability of the
premises for the son's business. He also observed that it was not the case of
the tenant that those shops which so fell vacant were let out. Hence, according
to the High Court as well as the lower Courts, it was to be assumed that the
portions which fell vacant were not suitable for the purposes of Madangopal's
business in glass and plywood.
contended in this appeal by the learned counsel for the tenant the tenant that
looking at the plan of the building , it has a ground floor, first floor and a
second floor. On the ground floor, the appellant-tenant is occupying the shop
which is on the right - hand side facing the road. There is another tenant in
the shop on the left- hand side doing business under the nave and style, Srinivas
Glass Agencies. Both the shops face the road. hand side was one of the shops
which had fallen vacant during the pendency of the proceedings and which was
said to have been given by the landlord to his daughters-in-law and other sons.
There is a passage running behind the shop in Srinivas Glass Agencies, running
from the front side, upto the back side into the Godown.
question is, assuming the landlord's requirement was bonafide, whether the
landlord was justified in not giving the above shop to his son Madangopal and
giving it to his daughters-in -law and other sons. It is not stated that the
daughters-in-law are having business and require a shop or that their need was
greater that of Madangopal. It has not been explained as to why the shop which
could be reached from the front side through the passage between the
appellant's shop on the right and Srinivas Glass Agencies on the left, was not
suitable. In the appellant's shop was not found suitable, we are constrained to
hold that the conclusion of Courts below that it was not suitable for the
landlord's son business was not tenable for the landlord's son below that it
was not suitable for the landlords son business was not tenable. Learned
counsel for the respondent-landlord said that the shop was not abutting the
road but was behind the front shop occupied by the appellant and could be
reached only through the passage between the 2 shops on the front side. We are
unable to see why the said shop which so fell vacant, for his son's business
and in allowing his daughters-in-law and other sons to use the same, was not bonafide.
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court, the
appellant authority & the Rent Controller and dismiss the eviction
petition. The appeal is allowed accordingly.