After purchasing the business, the appellant became a tenant under the father of the respondent by paying an advance of Rs.1,500 and agreeing to pay a rent at the rate of Rs.450 per month for the portion in which it companymenced to carry on the business.
After trial, the Controller dismissed the petition holding that the tenancy in question was in respect of both the residential and number residential portions and that the respondent companyld number seek eviction of the appellant as the major portion of the demised premises was of residential character.
215 of 1986.
Srinivasan for the Respondent.
The appellant resisted the petition.
After the expiry of the said period, it is stated, the respondent again demanded enhanced rent.
With effect from 5.10.1974 the appellant took the portion vacated by Mrs. Janaki Ammal also on rent from the father of the respondent by paying Rs.525 as advance and agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.175.
215 of 1986.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition and directed the appellant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent.
Thereafter it is stated that the ownership of the premises in question was transferred in favour of the respondent by his father.
On 25.11.1980 the appellant received a numberice from an advocate, who was acting on behalf of the father of the respondent terminating the tenancy of the appellant in respect of both the portions with effect from 31.12.1980 and requiring the appellant to deliver possession of the two portions of the ground floor of the premises in question to the father of the respondent on the ground that he needed the premises for the occupation of his son.
The rent of this portion was increased subsequently to Rs.315 per month.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.1988 of the Madras High Court in C.P.P. No.
Thereafter the respondent asked the appellant to increase the rent payable for the premises.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The question which arises for companysideration in this case is whether a landlord who seeks eviction of a tenant from a number residential building other than a number residential building which is used for keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use under section 10 3 a iii of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act is required to prove that he requires the said building for his own use or for the use of any member of his family bona fide in the proceedings instituted before the Controller.
In order to avoid litigation, the appellant agreed to pay a companysolidated amount of Rs.1,000 per month by way of rent for both the portions in the year 1981 and also paid a sum of Rs.7,500 as advance.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal.
The appellant is a partnership firm represented by its partner, 5.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1014 of 1988.
It was inter alia companytended by the appellant that the requirement of the wife of the respondent was number bona fide and the petition was liable to be dismissed.
Mrs. Janaki Ammal vacated the said residential portion in October, 1974.
The appellant sent a reply denying the right of the respondents father to evict the appellant from the premises.
In the rear portion of the ground floor of the premises one Mrs. Janaki Ammal was residing as a tenant.
Chandrakant M. Patel Ors.,
This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras.
Thereupon the respon dent preferred a revision petition before the High Court of Madras inCivil Revision Petition No.
Peer Mohammed.
The respondents brother was carrying on business in hardware in the front portion of the ground floor of the premises bearing No.
The appellant purchased the said running business from the brother of the respon dent on 5.7.1974.
The said building, however, belonged to the father of the respondent.
Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Ms. Setia Vaidalingam, N. Thiagarajan and Ms. Radha for the Appellant.
157, Kutcheri Road, Mylapore, Madras 4.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Controller the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
On the appellant number companyplying with the said demand the respondent instituted a petition for eviction of the appellant in the Court of the Controller at Madras under section 10 3 a iii of the Act on the ground that the premises in question were needed by his wife for carrying on pawn broker business which she was carrying on elsewhere.
On 9.6.1982 an agreement was entered into in respect of both the portions specifying that the lease should remain in force till 8.5.1983.
