V. Thangapandian vs J. Jagajothi

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The respondent herein is the landlord, who laid R.C.O.P.No.965 of 2000 before the learned XII Judge, Court of

Small Causes, Madras, for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the petition premises for his additional

accommodation.

During the trial in the above said R.C.O.P., the respondent/landlord alleged that he is doing oil business in the rear portion of the petition

premises and therefore he requires the portion occupied by the petitioner/tenant as an additional accommodation to run his business.

To substantiate his case that the requirement of the petition premises by the respondent/landlord is not bonafide, the revision petitioner/tenant

filed an application viz., M.P.No.160 of 2002 before the Court below to issue summon to the Commercial Tax Officer, Choolai, directing him to

produce the assessment orders for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 and A9/Purchase abstract for the assessment years 1998-99

and 1999-2000, as the respondent/landlord deposed before the Court below that he is maintaining Day-Book and Ledger Book. But the same

was objected to by the respondent/landlord on the ground that the production of the documents prayed for are not relevant for the disposal of the

above said R.C.O.P. The learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, by order dated 27.3.2002, accepting the objection raised by the

respondent/landlord, dismissed the said M.P. Hence, the above revision.

According to Mr. P. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant, the documents sought for to be summoned, are

relevant to decide the bonafide requirement of the petition premises by the respondent/landlord for his additional accommodation.

In my considered opinion, it is for the respondent/landlord to prove his bonafide requirement of the petition premises for his additional

accommodation and if he fails to do so, he would suffer and therefore, the revision petitioner/tenant is not entitled to summon the documents sought

for. In any event, either filing of the returns or failure to file the returns to the Sales Tax or Income Tax Authorities will not be a relevant criteria to

decide the bonafide requirement of the petition premises by the respondent/landlord for his additional accommodation, as it has to be decided on

the basis of the requirement of the landlord and not based on the returns submitted to the statutory authorities. Hence, the revision fails and the

same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.10545 of 2002 is also dismissed.