AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Singharavelu, J.—The landlord is the Revision Petitioner, who was owning a building bearing Door No. 21/693 in Ranga Gounder
Street, Coimbatore town, the first floor of which was occupied by him for residential purpose; the ground floor of which was occupied by the
Respondent/tenant on rental agreement. The landlord was running a tailoring business in some other area. In order to shift his tailoring business to
the petition mentioned property, he required the ground floor for his own occupation.
Even though the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the Respondent/tenant, accepting the ground of owners occupation pleaded by the
Revision Petitioner, by taking into account the subsequent event, that the landlord has shifted his residence from the first floor of the petition
mentioned property to Ondiputhur, R.C.A. preferred by the Respondent/tenant was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on the
ground that the landlord may occupy the first floor of the petition mentioned property for running his tailoring business.
True it is that the landlord need not be necessarily under a threat of eviction from the premises which he occupied as tenant, as fortified in
Ravichandran and Ors. v. Natarajan Nadar and Ors. 2004 1 MLJ 458 and M. Aishath Najiya Vs. Lalchand Kewalram and Others, .
It is also true that the bona fide contemplated need not be put to acid test, creating unnecessary doubt then and there, compelling the landlord to
answer each and every doubt raised by the tenants, in view of the inbuilt provisions in the Act, safeguarding the interest of the tenants, even after
the eviction order is passed, provided, the conditions are not complied with A.L.O. Gopal Sah, A.M. Surendar Sah and A.M. Sanjaykumar Sah
Vs. K.P.M. Musthaffa, K.P.M. Shagul Hameed and M.K.S. Siraj Unnissa,
The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/landlord again submitted that law does not say that the landlord shall always continue to do
business in a rented premises even if they are entitled to get possession of their own building. Boston and Others Vs. S.A. Akbar and Others, .
The Supreme court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Others, has held that ""normal rule is that rights and
obligations of parties are to be determined on date of petition and subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding relief, provided
such events are of such a nature and dimension as to completely eclipse the need and make it lose significance altogether.
Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly found that the requirement of landlord is not bona fide in as much as there is an
opportunity for him to occupy the first floor of the petition mentioned property from where he shifted his residence to Ondiputhur making it to fall
vacant; and that in that vacant first floor he may as well run his tailoring business and therefore there is no need for him to evict the
Respondent/tenant from the ground floor of the said building.
Now, by virtue of the situation that there is vacant place in the first floor of the petition mentioned property it has to be seen whether the
requirement of the landlord of the ground floor of the same building is bona fide. The landlord is not able to say that the first floor of the building is
not worthy for occupation for running his tailoring business; and in the absence of which it has to be taken as if it is worthy and that requirement of
ground floor in particular is not bona fide.
The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/landlord submits that subsequent to the order passed in R.C.A. the landlord has again re-shifted
his residence from Ondiputhur to the original place in first floor of the petition mentioned property. Why he should first of all shift his residence to
Ondiputhur and why should he again reshift to the first floor of the petition mentioned property.
If it is natural even for reasons other than that of showing only his motive to evict the tenant, then it is acceptable. While there are no other
reasons shown by the Revision Petitioner/landlord in this connection, then his action is with an oblique motive of evicting the tenant, that will make
his requirement only as mala fide.
In this connection the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/landlord again submitted that unless and until the subsequent event will
completely eclipse the need and make it lose significance altogether, rights and obligations of parties are determined on date of petition. It is also
true that the re-shifting of landlord''s residence from Ondiputhur to first floor of the petition mentioned property will make things only to appear as
existing on the day of petition. The subsequent event of shifting to Ondiputhur and re-shifting to first floor of the petition mentioned property may
not also completely eclipse the need.
But while deciding the bona fides of the need the shifting and re-shifting by the landlord will have a bearing. True it is that bona fide needs
should not be undermined as a mere desire however, even the need should only be a bona fide one.
In this case there is absolutely no reason or purpose mentioned for the landlord''s action of shifting and re-shifting his residence from the first
floor of the petition mentioned property. Therefore it becomes an act to hoodwink the opposite party and also the court which naturally will
deprive the element of bona fides in his requirement. The mind of the Revision Petitioner is filled with the aim of throwing the Respondent/tenant out
of the tenement, rather than requiring the building for running his tailoring business.
In this view of the matter I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Rent Control Appellate Authority. This Civil Revision Petition
fails and is dismissed. The order and decretal order dated 4.9.2000 passed in R.C.A. No. 35 of 1999 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority
(IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Trainee District Judge), Coimbatore is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 125 0 of 2006 is also
dismissed.