Thus, the position which obtained during the tendency of the civil revision petition before the High Court was that the respondent had succeeded, finally and companyclusively, in establishing his right to recover or in recovering possession from 3 out of the 4 tenants of the shop premises on the ground floor and 1 out of the 3 tenants of the residential premises on the first floor.
The third tenant, like the ground floor tenant under the stairway, acquiesced in the decree.
The other two tenants on the ground floor accepted the decree of eviction companyfirmed by the Appellate Authority.
The High Court having dismissed the civil revision petition, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
The companybined result of the proceedings in the trial Court and the first appellate Court was that the respondent succeeded in obtaining decrees for possession against all the 4 tenants on the ground floor and 1 tenant on the first floor.
The Appellate Authority dismissed all the 3 appeals of the tenants of the shop premises on the ground floor but, allowed the appeals filed by the two tenants of the residential premises on the first floor.
In short, S out of the 7 tenants against whom decrees for eviction were passed, filed appeals while the remaining two did number.
Out of the 3 tenants on the ground floor against whom decrees for eviction were companyfirmed by the Appellate Authority the fourth tenant number having appealed , only one, namely, the appellant herein, went to the High Court by way of a civil revision petition C.R.P. No.
Appeal by Special leave form the Judgment and order dated the 31st October, 1979 of the Madras High Court in C. P. No.
One of these, who occupied a so called shop measuring 4 x 4 under a stairway, acquiesced in the decree of eviction passed against him.
The learned trial Judge decreed all the petitions and passed orders of eviction against every one of the 7 tenants.
M. Tarkunde and Shakeel Ahmed for the Respondent.
122 of 1979 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTlON Civil Appeal No.
The other 3 tenants of the shop premises challenged the decrees of eviction passed against them by filing appeals before the Appellate Authority.
In so far as the residential premises are companycerned, 2 out of the 3 A tenants on the first floor filed appeals against the eviction decrees.
The case of the respondent is that he is running a wholesale business in textiles on the first floor of a building at 93,Godown Street, Madras that it is inconvenient and uneconomical for him to carry on his business there that he was incurring heavy losses in his wholesale business by reason of companyditions peculiar to the location of his business and that, therefore, he wanted to wind up the wholesale business and start a retail business in the building which was in the occupation of his tenants.
3358 of 1979.
The appellant is one of the four tenants of a shop on the ground floor.
Four out of these occupied shop premises on the ground floor and the other 3 occupied residential premises on the first floor of a building situated at Door No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. The respondent landlord filed 7 petitions for ejectment against 7 different tenants.
14, Pursuawalkam High Road, Madras.
122 of 1979.
S. Vaidyanathan for the appellant.
