Easwaran Chettiar vs K. Subbarayan on 3 April, 1970
10. In reply, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that so far as the denial of title which is a ground for eviction in the petition by the landlord under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Act is concerned, both the courts have found in favour of the tenant, the respondent herein to the effect that there has been no denial of the title of the landlord. Hence, the only question that is to be decided is whether the premises is genuinely required for the owner's occupation or not? that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner/landlord has got many properties in the town, and hence is disentitled to claim this property which is under tenancy by this respondent. The learned Counsel would point out that the fact that the owner of the premises who was already carrying on with the business and stopping it in the middle, then wanting and to commence the same, is one different from commencing a new business altogether. The learned Counsel would quote from the following judgments, wherein the upper forums of law have held in favour of the case of the respondent herein (i) Easwaran Chettiar v. Subbarayan 83 L.W. 696, (ii) Glamour Saree Museum v. Tamil Nadu H. W. Co-op. Society (1969)2 M.L.J. 493, (iii) Super Forgings & Steels (Sales) P. Ltd. v. Thyabally Rasuljee , and (iv) Radhakrishnan v. S.N. Loganatha Mudaliar (1999)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 1 : (1998)3 L.W. 186.