Madras High Court
G. Nagarathnam vs District Library Officer, Local ... on 17 February, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1986)1MLJ327
ORDER G. Maheswaran, J.
1. The revision petitioner-landlord has filed this revision against the order of the Appellate Authority (Rent Control) in R.C.A. No. 1093 of 1982 confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Madras, in H.R.C. No. 4461 of 1981 dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 19(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The petition schedule property is occupied by the respondent, District Library Officer, Local Library Authority, Madras, on a monthly rental of Rs. 100. The revision petitioner, a graduate and owner of the petition schedule property, requires the same for running a nursery school and creche for children of employed women. She filed the petition referred to. But the Rent Controller found that the requirement is not bona fide and dismissed the petition. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the petition. This revision challenges the order of the Tribunals below.
3. The revision petitioner is an unmarried graduate who wants to earn a livelihood by starting a nursery school in the building belonging to her. Her father, a retired official, and Yamuna, her elder sister, employed as a teacher in a nursery school, have assured her of their assistance in the matter of running a nursery school. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the revision petitioner has the wherewithal for starting this business and that she has not employed any teachers and that she has no experience and that therefore "her bona fide have to be suspected." The expression "carrying on business" has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Raju Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu . Speaking for the Bench, Veeraswami, C.J. pointed out that the expression "carrying on business" occurring in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) may consist of a series of steps and even if one step is proved, the requirement of the section will be satisfied, but if there is no step at all whatever and the matter is only in the stage of intention, it is difficult to bring such a case under Section 10(3)(a)(iii). Though it is not actually necessary to prove that the revision petitioner is carrying on a business, if she has taken one step in the series of steps for running a nursery school, her case could have been brought under Section 10(3)(a)(iii). But, in this case, the only document filed to show that a step was taken, is Ex.P-5, a pamphlet which shows that a nursery school is run at No. 39, Minor Trustpuram. This can hardly be said to be a step taken in the matter of commencing a nursery school. The revision petitioner is yet to commence the nursery school and before that she has published the pamphlet. It is no doubt true that she being a graduate wanted to employ herself by running a nursery school in her own premises and therefore as regards the intention to start such a school there could be no doubt. But, in this case no step, whatever, has been taken and the matter is only in the stage of intention. As there is no tangible and concrete evidence of commencement of a nursery school, mere intention to start or carry on a nursery school will not enable the petitioner to resort to Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. On that view, this revision fails and is dismissed. No costs.