The appellant landlord preferred an appeal against the said order of the Rent Controller before the appellant authority.
13 filed by the landlord it companyld be numbered that the partnership agreement had been entered on 25 8 1988 and from Ext.
The High Court had numbered in the first order of remand that in the numberice for eviction the landlord stated about the requirement of the disputed premises on account of expanding his own business but in the eviction petition, the case for bona fide requirement of the landlord was founded number only for the requirement for expansion of his own business but also for the expansion the pawn broking business of the wife and daughter in law of the landlord and also for demolition and companystruction of the suit premises.
The respondent tenant refused to vacate the suit premises and on 17 4 1985, the appellant landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 10 3 a iii of the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the appellant landlord required more space for running the said pawn broking shop as well as the business of his own.
The Rent Controller, however, negatived the case of the appellant landlord that he required the premises for demolition or companystruction under Section 14 1 b of the Rent Act.
The appellate authority also held that on perusal of Ext.
141 was amply proved.
The appellate authority came to be finding that the tenant in his evidence had admitted that the newly companystructed building of the landlord had number been fully companypleted and numbershop was being run in the aforesaid building.
The appellate authority, therefore, came to the finding that the landlord did number own any vacant building.
141 prior to the giving of numberice for eviction and such business was introduced only for the purpose of making a case for eviction.
The respondent tenant thereafter filed Civil Revision Petition No.
4 of 1988 filed by the respondent tenant after endorsing the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the suit premises was bona fide required by the appellant landlord for his use and occupation.
The respondent tenant thereafter filed a Civil Revision Petition being Civil Revision Petition No.
9 of 1988 by the same judgment.
1448 of 1989 in the High Court of Madras challenging the said eviction order under Section 10 3 a iii of the Rent Act.
9 of 1975.
30 to 37 and 43 to 50 pertaining to the accounts of the said Govindammal and Company which were filed after the said first order of remand, it was clearly established that the said partnership business namely Govindammal and Company had been slowly progressing from year 1983.
By order dated 31 8 1977, the appellant authority allowed the said appeal and directed the eviction of the said tenant Vasanthan.
The respondent tenant thereafter filed RCA No.
Accordingly, it companyld number be companytended that claim for eviction on account of the said partnership business was number made with any good intention.
9 of 1988 against the dismissal of the appellant landlords case for eviction under Section 14 1 b of the Rent Act.
The said civil revision petition was allowed by the High Court by its order dated 11 12 1992 inter alia on the finding that the appellate authority had number decided the appeal after remand in companyformity with the order of remand dated 11 4 1990 passed by the High Court.
4 of 1988 dated 26 4 1989.
It is the case of the landlord that he required the suit premises for expansion of his own business and also the pawn broking business under the partnership of his wife and daughter in law.
The appellant landlord also filed Cross Appeal being RCA No.
The appellant landlord also urges that since the suit premises were old and in a dilapidated companydition the same required urgent demolition and companystruction and accordingly the tenant should also be evicted under Section 14 1 b of the Rent Act.
4 of 1988 filed by the respondent tenant and companyfirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller.
The appeal was remanded for the second time by the High Court before the appellate authority by directing inter alia that the said appeal should be disposed of by following the directions companytained in the order of remand dated 11 4 1990.
By an order dated 11 4 1990, the said Civil Revision Petition No.
By an order dated 5 10 1987, the learned Rent Controller allowed the said RCOP No.
436 of 1991 in February 199 1.
The appellate authority by a judgment and order dated 14 12 1990, dismissed the said RCA No.
10 it transpired that the said partnership firm was assessed for income tax and from Exts.
The appellate authority then took into companysideration as to whether the landlord had other premises in his occupation in which requirement for running the said business companycerns companyld be carried out.
37 of 1985 on the ground that the appellant landlord had made out a case under Section 10 3 a iii of the Rent Act and he required the suit premises bona fide for his own occupation.
Referring to a decision of this Court made in Krishnan Nair v. Ghouse Basha2 the appellate authority inter alia came to the finding that a petition under Section 10 3 a iii of the Rent Act on account of requirement of a partnership business in which the members of the family of the landlord were partners with strangers, was admissible and the landlord was entitled to claim eviction of the tenant for running such partnership business with strangers.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. RAY, J. Leave granted.
1448 of 1989 was allowed by the High Court of Madras and the case was remanded to the appellate authority inter alia directing the appellate authority to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law and ill terms of the directions companytained in the said order.
The appellate authority also took into companysideration the case of bona fide requirement of the landlord in the companytext of number mentioning the requirement of the landlord on account of the said pawn broking business in the numberice.
The appellant landlord is the owner of the suit premises being Shop No.
141 and the said partnership business had existed even prior to giving numberice for eviction to the tenant, it was established that the landlords claim of requirement of the suit premises for expanding the said partnership business was based on bona fide intention.
11 and 12 it appeared that the income tax had been assessed from the year 1985 onwards.
Thereafter, the appellant landlord on 29 8 1978, let out the suit premises to the respondent M.R. Ramachandra Naidu for a period of three years from 1 8 1978 to 31 8 1981 on a rental of Rs 750 per month.
Since the impugned second order of remand has been passed by the High Court inter alia on the finding that the appellate authority failed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the directions companytained in the earlier order of remand, it is necessary to advert to the observations made in the first order of remand in order to appreciate as to whether or number the appellate authority has failed to dispose of the appeal properly in accordance with the directions companytained in the order of remand.
141 both the said two business establishments were being run.
The appellate authority also found that the jewellery shop of the landlord known as Sundar Jewellery was also being run in the said Door No.
The learned appellate authority, however, dismissed the landlords Cross Appeal being RCA No.
It is this second order of remand dated 11 12 1992 which has been challenged in the instant appeal by the appellant landlord.
Thereafter, pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court to both the parties to adduce further evidence before the appellate authority, fresh evidences both oral or documentary were adduced before the appellate authority.
By an order dated 12 12 1975, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the said eviction proceeding being RCOP No.
On 15 6 1971, the appellant landlord leased out the premises in question to Shri G. Vasanthan on a monthly rental of Rs 400 with effect from 15 6 1971 and the appellant landlord sought eviction of the said tenant Vasanthan and filed a petition for eviction on 22 4 1975 under Section 14 1 b of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act before the Rent Controller Mayiladuthurai.
Coming to the question of the location of the said business in pawn broking and also the business of the landlord known as Sunder Jewellery, the appellate authority held that much importance was number required to be attached as to the location of the pawn broking business in view of the fact that it was an admitted position that at Door No.
By a judgment and order dated 26 4 1988, the appellate authority dismissed RCA No.
The appellant landlord served a numberice dated 5 11 1984 upon the respondent tenant asking him to vacate the suit premises.
The period of lease was extended further for another term of three years with effect from 1 9 1981 to 31 8 1984.
The appellate authority, therefore, held that the running of the said partnership business in the said Door No.
142, Gandhiji Road, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu.
Pursuant to the numberice issued on the Special Leave Petition No.
1687 of 1993, the respondent has entered appearance through companynsel and the companynter affidavit has also been filed.
