E.K. Nagamanickam chettiar vs Nallakannu Servai

Rajamannar, C.J.—In this case the landlord, who is the Petitioner before me, sought to evict the tenant u/s 7(3)(a)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the ground that he wanted the building for the business which he was carrying on. It was true that he was carrying on business in camphor in a rented building and he has not been threatened with eviction therefrom. But the learned Subordinate Judge, the Appellate Tribunal, has found-and that finding cannot be challenged-that the land lord desires to install power-driven machinery for the said business. There is a finding of fact of the learned Subordinate Judge that the rented building which he is now occupying is unsuitable for the installation of power-driven machinery. Indeed, the landlord''s application for a licence has been refused by the Municipality. It follows, therefore, that he is not in occupation of a building for the purpose of carrying on the business of manufacturing camphor with the help of power-driven machinery. He would, therefore, be prima facie entitled to the benefit of Section 7(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Section 7(3)(c) indicates that a landlord is entitled to evict a tenant who is occupying a portion of his non residential building if he requires that portion also as additional accommodation for the purpose of the business which he is carrying on. The principle underlying this provision would apply equally to this case where it is not a case of requiring additional accommodation, but it is a case of requiring accommodation necessary for carrying on the business with the help of power-driven machinery. I entirely agree with the reasoning of Viswanatha Sastri J., in the recent decision of the Andhra High Court in Venkataswami and Sons. v. Virabhadraswami (1955) and W.R. 695. The learned District Judge was wrong in his application of the material provision of the Act.

The Civil Revision petition is allowed and there will be an order of eviction passed against the Respondent. The Respondent will have four months from today to give vacant possession to the Petitioner. There will be no order as to costs throughout.