Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. I am therefore of opinion that the petition by the respondent for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) for purpose of residence and business of her son was maintainable.

9. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the son of the respondent was only a partner in the money lending business and as such it cannot be said that the respondent required the premises for the purpose of the business of her son. In this connection", the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in V. R. Jayaraman v. N. S. Ramalingam C.R.P. No. 2343 of 1971 and a decision of the Supreme Court reported in D. N. Sanghavi v. A. T. Das .

10. In V.R. Jayaraman v. N. S. Ramalingam C.R.P. No. 2343 of 1971 the landlord filed an application for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) on the ground that the premises was required for the purpose of a business carried on by his wife, his brother's wife and his son-in-law in partnership. It was found that he was in possession of a non- residential building in which he was carrying on a jewellery business and the business carried on by his wife in partnership with others was a drug shop. Two contentions were raised before the learned Judges. The first contention was that since he was already in possession of a building in which he was carrying on, business he was not entitled to file that application. This contention was rejected holding that that was not a ground on which the petition could be rejected but all the same the learned Judges considered that the building was required for the purpose of a business which was run in partnership and the need of the partnership cannot be taken to be the need of the individual partner and as such the eviction could not be ordered. Though prima facie this judgment supports-the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner I am of the view that the learned Judges were not expressing any definite opinion on the question whether the landlord could ask for possession of a non-residential building for purpose of a business in which either he or any member of his family was only a partner. In fact in the earlier portion of the judgment the learned Judges have specifically stated that the need of any member of his family could form a ground for an application under that section. On the facts, in that case they considered that the need was not that of the petitioner's wife individually but it was of the partnership that was, projected as a ground for eviction and that therefore the petition could not be ordered. In fact the decision of the Supreme Court in D.N. Sanghavi v. A.T. Das , relied on by the learned Counsel had ruled that merely on the ground that the premises is required for a partnership of which the landlord or any member of his family was a partner it cannot be rejected but it will have to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the view of their Lordships of the Supreme Court if a member of the family of the landlord is actively participating or is entitled to manage the business either solely or with other partners or if the members of the family are the sole managing partners the provision for eviction could be invoked by the landlord though the business was a partnership business. The learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to rely on this judgment in support of his argument that Clause (iii) of Sub-section 3 of Section 10 could not be invoked by the landlord in a case where the business for the purpose of carrying on which the premises is required is not of the landlord but either it belongs to any other member of his family or any such member in partnership with others. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned Counsel. In fact the decision of the Supreme Court goes against such a contention. That decision was concerned with the interpretation of Section 2(1)(e) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act XLI of 1961. Section 12(i)(e) of the Act related to landlord's application for possession of a residential building for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family. Clause (f) of that section related to non-residential building and provided that the landlord could seek possession for purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any member of his major sons or unmarried daughters. After setting out the other relevant provisions in the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act their Lordships considered that there is a material difference in the provisions of the Act in treatment of a residential and non residential buildings and the provisions of the Act were more rigorous in the case of non-residential buildings. Having regard to the scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act their Lordships held that while Section 12(1)(e) enable the landlord to obtain residential accommodation for his or any member of his family, Section 12(1)(f) only enables the landlord to obtain possession only for purposes of "his business". The distinction made in the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act between residential and non-residential building in the matter of requirement of owner's occupation is not kept up in the Tamil Nadu. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The wording in Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) is identical and the conditions precedent for the operation of these clauses are also identical. In my View, therefore this decision of the Supreme Court does not help the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand the Division Bench of this Court in Danmull Sowcar v. Syed All Mohamed , has held that a landlord-is entitled to ask for possession of a non-residential building for purposes of carrying on business in which he is only a partner. Though that was a case where the landlord-petitioner himself was a partner of a business and he asked for possession of a non-residential building for purposes carrying on his business in partnership the ratio of that judgment will equally apply to a case where the landlord asks for the premises for the purpose. of business of any member of his family. It may also be pointed out that in this case the evidence showed that the son of the respondent was carrying on the money- lending business in a premises where he was also living thereby showing that he was substantially interested in the business and he was managing the same. The respondent had not stated in the . counter or in the evidence that the son of the respondent was either a sleeping partner or he was not in management of the money-lending business. On these facts therefore the petitioner cannot contend that the application is not maintainable.