Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1282 (MAD)

N. Moorthy v. M. Sivaprakasam & Others

2005-08-05

R.BANUMATHI

body2005
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act, against the Judgment dated 08.04.1997 passed by III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in M.A.No. 32 of 1994, as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 08.04.1997 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (III Additional District Judge), Pondicherry in M.A.No.32 of 1994, ordering Eviction of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant. The Tenant is the Revision Petitioner. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original rank in H.R.C.O.P.No.29 of 1993. 3. H.R.C.O.P.No.29 of 1993:- The Petitioner / Landlord filed Petition for Eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) seeking Eviction of the Respondent / Tenant from the demised premises on the ground of requiring the premises for personal occupation of his Son to carry on the business. Case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent is a Tenant in the premises – Door No.115, Ranga Pillai Street, Pondicherry. The Respondent has been carrying on business under the name and style of "Sri Mahalakshmi Hardware Mart”. The Respondent had also taken a very big building opposite to the premises on lease and is carrying on his Hardware business there. The Petitioner demanded the Respondent to vacate the business to enable his Son Vinayagam @ Baskar to have Automobile Workshop. The Respondent / Tenant promised to vacate the premises by September 1992, but did not adhere to his promise. The Petitioner / Landlord is not owning and possessing any other premises at Pondicherry. The requirement of the the Petitioner / Landlord is bonafide. After issuing Notice, the Petitioner / Landlord has filed the Petition for Eviction. 4. Admitting tenancy, the Respondent / Tenant has filed the Counter Statement contending that he has never agreed to vacate and hand over possession of the premises. The location of the premises is not conducive for running the Automobile Workshop. The Petitioner’s Son has not obtained any Licence for running any Automobile Work Shop. The Respondent / Tenant is doing Hardware Business in the premises and he has much number of customers and substantial amount is due from the customers. The Respondent had taken on lease a portion in the opposite Building for storing his business materials to run the business effectively. The Respondent / Tenant is doing Hardware Business in the premises and he has much number of customers and substantial amount is due from the customers. The Respondent had taken on lease a portion in the opposite Building for storing his business materials to run the business effectively. The claim of the Petitioner that he bonafidely requires the business is not true and the Petitioner is not entitled for vacating the Respondent. 5. Upon consideration of the averments and the evidence adduced by the parties, learned Rent Controller found that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 showing that the Petitioner’s Son Vinayagam @ Baskar carries on business is not acceptable. Learned Rent Controller was of the view that P.Ws.2 and 3 have been brought up for the purposes of the case and Ex.A.4 has also been created for bolstering the claim of the Petitioner. Finding that the Landlord can maintain the Petition for Eviction only if it is proved that the Landlord or his son are proved to be carrying on business on the date of the Petition, learned Rent Controller dismissed the Application for Eviction. 6. As against the order of the Dismissal of the Eviction Petition, the Petitioner / Landlord has preferred the Appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pondicherry. Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (III Additional District Judge) satisfied on the bonafide requirement of the Petitioner. Finding that there is no reason to doubt the bonafide requirement of the Petitioner, the Appellate Authority held that as a prudent father, the Petitioner / Landlord bonafide requires the premises to ensure that his Son is properly placed. Basing on the evidence of R.W.2, learned Rent Control Appellate Authority pointed out the advantages of the Tenant having the place of business at No.7-A, Eswaran Koil Street, Pondicherry and the Branch Office is only at the demised premises and by order of Eviction, no hardship would be caused to the Respondent / Tenant. On the above findings, learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the Appeal, reversing the order of the Rent Controller. 7. Aggrieved over the order of Eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Respondent / Tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. On the above findings, learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the Appeal, reversing the order of the Rent Controller. 7. Aggrieved over the order of Eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Respondent / Tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Vehemently assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that though P.Ws.2 and 3 have been brought forth only to speak in favour of the Petitioner, the Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated their evidence and the contradictions thereon. Contending that the contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is irreconcilable, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority erred in placing reliance upon P.Ws.1 to 3 to accept the case of the Petitioner of bonafide requirement. Submitting that the Proviso regarding Relative Hardship relates only to Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and not to Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the Appellate Court erred in considering the Relative Hardship / advantage to the Respondent / Tenant. The "bonafide requirement” is assailed on the ground that a mere desire to provide for the business of his Son is not a bonafide requirement. The main contention urged is that there is no bonafide requirement and the order of eviction cannot be sustained. 8. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the Respondent / Landlord has submitted that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity merely because the Appellate Authority has gone in detail regarding Relative Hardship. It is submitted that the plea of Relative Hardship to the Tenant is not available relating to Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Pointing out the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, learned counsel for the Respondent / Landlord has submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has properly appreciated their evidence and rightly found bonafide requirement of the Petitioner / Landlord. It is submitted that any contradictions urged in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be blown out of proportion. Learned counsel has further contended that before ever the sub-lease with P.W.2 could expire the Son of the Petitioner has rightly entered into an Arrangement with P.W.3 to carry on the Automobile Workshop. Drawing the attention of the Court to Section 355 of the Pondicherry Municipalities Act, learned counsel submitted that for carrying on the Automobile Workshop, no licence is required and the contention urged by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is untenable. Drawing the attention of the Court to Section 355 of the Pondicherry Municipalities Act, learned counsel submitted that for carrying on the Automobile Workshop, no licence is required and the contention urged by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is untenable. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority has rightly taken note of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and weighed the requirement of the Petitioner / Landlord. 9. Upon consideration of the contention of both parties, evidence, Impugned Order and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition. i.Whether the bonafide requirement is proved by the Petitioner / Landlord and whether the essential ingredients of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) have been proved? ii.Whether the findings of the Appellate Authority are wholly unreasonable warranting interference in exercising the power Under Section 25 of the Act? 10. The Provisions of Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 is identical as with the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. We may appreciate the evidence and the contentions urged by the parties in the light of the well settled decisions and the precedents under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Revisional Power under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is wider than the Revisional power under Section 115 C.P.C. Under Section 25 of the Act, the Court is to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the Impugned Order. Unless the Impugned Order suffers from perversity or unreasonableness, sitting in Revision, it will not be appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. However, to ensure the correctness or the propriety of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the High Court has wide powers to appreciate the evidence. Since elaborate arguments have been advanced to appreciate the correctness of the findings of the Appellate Authority, which has reversed the order of the Rent Controller, it is necessary to elaborately consider the contentious points in the light of the evidence and materials on record. 11. The demised premises relate to Door NO.115, Ranga Pillai Street, Pondicherry measuring about 105 Sq.Ft a tiled Shop Premises. The premises is required for the business of the son of the Landlord for running the Automobile Workshop. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act deals with the conditions for obtaining position of non-residential building. 11. The demised premises relate to Door NO.115, Ranga Pillai Street, Pondicherry measuring about 105 Sq.Ft a tiled Shop Premises. The premises is required for the business of the son of the Landlord for running the Automobile Workshop. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act deals with the conditions for obtaining position of non-residential building. A reading of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act would reveal that the Landlord is to satisfy the following conditions:- (a)The premises in question must be non-residential; (b)The Son for whose business the Landlord requires the premises in question shall carry on a business; (c)The Son for whose business the landlord requires the premises is not occupying for the purpose of such business a non-residential building of his own; and (d)The Landlord’s requirement of the premises for the business of his Son must be bona fide. 12. Undoubtedly, the Building is a non-residential building. The first essential condition is that the Landlord’s Son – Vinayagam @ Baskar should be carrying on the business on the date of applying for Eviction. Case of the Petitioner is that his Son – Vinayagam @ Baskar is a trained mechanic and requires the business to have the Workshop in the premises. The place where Vinayagam @ Baskar was carrying on business is not stated in the Petition. However, to prove that Vinayagam @ Baskar is a trained mechanic and that he is carrying on business, the Petitioner / Landlord has examined P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 is running a Cycle Store in Door No.80. In his evidence, P.W.2 has stated that in the month of March 1991, he has leased a portion of his shop to the Petitioner’s Son Vinayagam on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- and he was running his work shop till 1992. Further, P.W.2 has stated that Vinayagam has paid an advance of Rs.5000/- and that he returned the advance when the Petitioner’s Son vacated the shop. To substantiate his evidence, Ex.A.4 – Acknowledgment (dated 27.08.1992)issued by P.W.2 for return of the advance amount has been produced. Evidence of P.W.2 is strengthened by documentary evidence – Ex.A.4. 13. Evidence of P.W.2 is sought to be assailed on the ground that his version is contradictory. In the Chief-examination, P.W.2 has stated that he executed Ex.A.4 when the Petitioner’s Son has vacated his Shop. Evidence of P.W.2 is strengthened by documentary evidence – Ex.A.4. 13. Evidence of P.W.2 is sought to be assailed on the ground that his version is contradictory. In the Chief-examination, P.W.2 has stated that he executed Ex.A.4 when the Petitioner’s Son has vacated his Shop. On the other hand, in the Cross-examination, he has stated that Ex.A.4 was issued when the Petitioner’s Son took the shop on lease to run the Workshop. This contradiction seems to have been weighed subtantially in the mind of the Rent Controller. Though P.W.2 has stated in the Chief-Examination that Ex.A.4 was issued at the time of refund of the advance amount, in his Cross-examination, he has stated, "...When Baskaran paid me an advance of Rs.5000/- I issued receipt and Ex.A.4 is that receipt...”. Much weight cannot be attached to such varied version in the Cross-examination since at times overawed by the Court atmosphere, Witnesses some times give contradictory versions. The oral evidence is to be assessed in the light of the documentary evidence. Supporting the version of P.W.2 that an amount of Rs.5000/- was returned at the time when he vacated and at that time Ex.A.4 was issued is strengthened by the recitals in Ex.A.4, which reads as follows: "...ehd; ,lj;ij fhyp bra;J tpLk;go nfl;Lf;bfhz;ljhy; jh';fs; ey;y Kiwapy; filia vd;dplk; xg;gilj;J tpl;ljhy; ehd; j';fsplk; Kd;gzkhf bgw;wpUe;j U:gha; 5000-? (Iahapuk; kl;Lk;) j';fsplk; ,d;iwa njjpapy; brYj;jp tpl;nld;/ ,jd; K:yk; j';fSf;F ve;jtpj bjhifa[k; epYit ,y;iy vd;Wk; ,d;W Kjy; j';fSf;Fk; filf;Fk; ve;jtpj bjhlh;g[k; ,y;iy vd;gij bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;...” The above recitals amply strengthens the version of P.W.2. The Rent Controller was not right in declining the evidence of P.W.2. The contradiction pointed out does not in any way undermine his trustworthiness. The finding of the Rent Controller that P.W.2 is a stock witness is unreasonable. 14. P.W.3 has been running his workshop at No.429, Bharathi Street, Pondicherry. P.W.3 himself is a lessee under one Jayalakshmi. The Petitioner’s Son – Vinayagam was associated with P.W.3 from January 1992. In his evidence, P.W.3 has stated that a portion of his workshop was sub-leased to Vinayagam @ Baskar for carrying on his repairing work of TVS Vehicle from January 1992. Evidence of P.W.3 is assailed that it is contradictory to the version of P.W.2, who has stated that Vinayagam was carrying on the work in the premises of P.W.2 till March 1992. Evidence of P.W.3 is assailed that it is contradictory to the version of P.W.2, who has stated that Vinayagam was carrying on the work in the premises of P.W.2 till March 1992. Evidence of P.W.3 and the case of the Petitioner is assailed mainly on the ground that the Petitioner’s Son – Vinayagam could not have carried on the mechanical work both in the premises of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and that the version of P.Ws.2 and 3 irreconcilable. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Landlord has contended that Petitioner’s Son might have found sufficient time to work in both the places. The understanding between the Petitioner’s Son with P.W.2 is that he would be permitted to run the Automobile Workshop for one year from March 1992. Hence, quite reasonably, even in January 1992, which is two months before the expiry of the understanding, the Petitioner’s Son / Third Respondent herein had made alternative arrangements with P.W.3 at Door No.429, Bharathi Street, Pondicherry. Quite reasonably, when the sub lease with P.W.2 was about to expire, the Petitioner’s Son might have made arrangement with P.W.3. The contention of the Respondent / Tenant that P.Ws.2 and 3 have been brought up for the purposes of the case is unfounded. 15. From the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the Petitioner’s Son is proved to be carrying on business and working as a Mechanic. The Petitioner has filed the Petition for Eviction on the ground that his Son – Vinayagam @ Baskar requires the place for carrying on the business. The Son was proved to be carrying on business in the premises, which he had taken on sub-lease. The Son – Vinayagam @ Baskar does not occupy any residential premises of his own. Hence, the requirement of the Landlord has been rightly found to be bonafide and the conclusion of the Appellate Authority is to be endorsed with. 16. Contending that the Landlord failed to establish bonafide requirement, learned counsel for the Respondent / Tenant has contended that no document has been produced to prove the qualification of the Petitioner’s Son. It is the further contention that no document / Licence had been produced enabling the Petitioner’s Son-Vinayagam to start the workshop. In this regard, the Appellate Court expressed the view "... It is the further contention that no document / Licence had been produced enabling the Petitioner’s Son-Vinayagam to start the workshop. In this regard, the Appellate Court expressed the view "... I have not come across duly trained mechanic for setting up a workshop after getting a valid certificate issued by the Industry or Government. Further, it is a common feature that mechanics are opening shops in all the streets at every nook and corner of the City of Pondicherry and also in the surrounding areas. I have not heard of Pondicherry Municipality or any Commune Panchayat issuing a Trade licence. What is required for a two wheeler mechanic is only effective past experience and a few tools for that purpose....” This finding is assailed on the ground that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority erred in importing his personal views. This contention does not merit acceptance. The appreciation of evidence is not far from reasoning and inferences out of the common knowledge and experience. By expressing the view that for opening of the mechanic shops, no licence is required and expressing his views that effective past experience is sufficient, learned District Judge cannot be said to have exceeded nor the above views suffer from unreasonableness. 17. In fact, the view of the Appellate Authority that no Licence is required for setting up a work shop is not based on any surmises, but based upon the Pondicherry Municipalities Act. Section 355 of the said Act deals with the purpose for which places may not be used without licence. Section 355 reads as follows:- "...The council may, by a Notification and by beat of drum, direct that no place within municipal limits shall be used for any one or more of the purposes specified in Schedule III without the licence of the Commissioner and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein and where the licence is for keeping hotels, restaurants, eating houses, coffee houses, laundries or running barber saloons the licence issued by the Commissioner shall always contain and be deemed to contain a condition that admission or service therein shall be available to any member of the public. ....” Thus, the place of workshop or the place where the mechanical work is to be carried out is not a place for which obtaining licence is a mandatory requirement. ....” Thus, the place of workshop or the place where the mechanical work is to be carried out is not a place for which obtaining licence is a mandatory requirement. When there is no mandatory requirement, the Respondent / Tenant is not right in contending that the bonafide requirement is not proved by producing licence obtained by the Petitioner’s Son. 18. In the decision reported in S.R.DEVA RAO ..VS.. A.T.ARMUGAM CHETTIAR ETC., (1989 (2) L.W. 48) it has been held that when the claim of the Landlord is bonafide, the Court has to grant the relief and that it is not a condition precedent for the Landlord to obtain licence. In the said decision, it has been held : "....For the purposes of an Application under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960) as amended by Act 23 of 1973, it is not necessary that the landlord should first obtain licences under the various statutes in order to prove bonafides. If the evidence on record makes out the requirement to be bonafide, the fact that he has not obtained licences under the respective statutes would not go against the same. It is not a condition precedent for the landlord to obtain licences....” 19. Contending that the requirement is not bonafide, learned counsel for the Respondent / Tenant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in SHIV SARUP GUPTA ..VS.. DR. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA ( 1999 (6) S.C.C. 222 ) wherein the Supreme Court has elaborately considered the expression "Bonafide Requirement” and has held : "...The phrase "required bonafide” is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The judge of facts should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself – whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the Court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for the premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the Court. The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the Court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against.....” 20. On the above decision, main contention urged is that the Petitioner’s son is not proved to be doing mechanical work and hence, no bonafide requirement is proved. It is well settled that "carrying on business” need not necessarily mean that the Petitioner’s Son has started the mechanical work vigourously. In the decision reported in SOLAI NADAR ..VS.. GURUSWAMI NADAR ( 1969 (1) M.L.J 629 ), it has been held that the case law is abundant and varying. It is well settled that "carrying on business” need not necessarily mean that the Petitioner’s Son has started the mechanical work vigourously. In the decision reported in SOLAI NADAR ..VS.. GURUSWAMI NADAR ( 1969 (1) M.L.J 629 ), it has been held that the case law is abundant and varying. The general principles noticeable in the majority of the cases appears to be that bonafide preparation to do business at the place where that tenant is trading coupled with an honest and a genuine need for the same would entitle a landlord for an order under the Section. In the decision reported in NILGIRI DAIRY FARM ..VS.. MANOHARAN ( 1978 (1) M.L.J. 357 ), it has been held that carrying on business may consist of several steps and even if one step is proved the requirement is satisfied. 21. In support of his contention that the bonafide preparations to do mechanical work / to carry on the work itself is sufficient, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Landlord has relied upon the decision reported in T.V.JAGATRAKSHAGAN AND FIVE OTHERS ..VS.. N.FUTAREE BAI AND THREE OTHERS ( 2000 (3) L.W. 195 ) wherein M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J. has accepted the bonafide requirement for the Wife of the Landlord and held thus: "...The words "carrying on business” have been interpreted in so many decisions rendered by this Court, because these words have got certain legal import. "Carrying on” need not mean that the landlord must be already actually and actively carrying on the business. If the matter has already passed the stage of a bare intention or desire, and some steps towards its execution have been taken, it is sufficient for the purpose of the provisions. It is not possible to lay down a hard and fast rule as to what that step should be. It would all depend upon the nature of the business, nature of the effort to be employed upon and other relevant factors, which would enable the carrying on such business. In other words, ”carrying on business” may consist of series of steps. It cannot be said that if only all the steps have been taken, the requirement of the section would be satisfied. In other words, even if one step is taken and proved, in my view, the essential requirement of the section is satisfied. In other words, ”carrying on business” may consist of series of steps. It cannot be said that if only all the steps have been taken, the requirement of the section would be satisfied. In other words, even if one step is taken and proved, in my view, the essential requirement of the section is satisfied. But, if the matter is only in the stage of intention or desire and there is no step at all whatever, then it can certainly be said that it would not bring such a case under the said section. Short of any tangible concrete indication of commencement of a business, mere desire to carry on business would not enable the landlord to resort to Section 10(3)(a)(iii).....” 22. Much arguments had been advanced by the Respondent / Landlord contending that the Petitioner’s Son is not proved to be having any genuine business. It is further submitted that mere desire to carry on the mechanical work is not sufficient to get an order of eviction. This contention has no merits. From the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, it is clear that the Petitioner’s Son Vinayagam has the skill and technical knowledge to repair TVS-50 and other vehicles. He was doing the work by taking the premises on sub-lease from P.W.3 and from P.W.2. The Petitioner’s Son has no other premises of his own to carry on the mechanical work. In fact, the Respondent / Tenant has no knowledge of the avocation of the Petitioner’s Son. In the Cross-examination, he has only denied knowledge of the avocation of the Petitioner’s Son. Bonafide requirement is not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in the decision reported in THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ..VS.. SAROJA GOINDARAJAN ( 2001 (2) L.W. 647 )it has been held thus: "....The expression "bonafide” is not a meaningless jargon and it has proper connotation and has been explained by several judgments of the Apex Court. The Supreme Court has given a categorical guideline to find out as to the bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord. SAROJA GOINDARAJAN ( 2001 (2) L.W. 647 )it has been held thus: "....The expression "bonafide” is not a meaningless jargon and it has proper connotation and has been explained by several judgments of the Apex Court. The Supreme Court has given a categorical guideline to find out as to the bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord. The bona fide requirement has to be culled out from the averments contained in the petition and from the evidence adduced in the proceedings and on such objective determination, if it is proved with certain materials, that the requirement is bonafide, then, definitely, under the provisions of the Act, the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction. The proof required for proving the said bonafide is also only to the satisfaction of the Court to arrive at an objective determination and it is not always necessary to prove the bonafide beyond all reasonable doubt as in criminal proceedings”. 23. While considering the bonafide requirement of the Landlord, learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has gone into the advantages of the Tenant and thereby elaborately considered the aspect of Relative Hardship. The Respondent / Tenant is running Sri Mahalakshmi Hardware Mart with the principal place of business at 7-A,Easwaran Koil Street, Pondicherry. Only branch office is at the demised premises at No.115, Rangapillai Street, Pondicherry. To prove that the Respondent / Tenant has the principal place of business in 7-A,Easwaran Koil Street and has a Godown at No.122, Rangapillai Street, Pondicherry, R.W.1 – an official witness from the office of Joint Commercial Tax Officer – I, Circle I was examined. Through whom, Ex.B.5-Certificate containing the details and Ex.B.6 – Certificate detailing the place of godown with effect from 03.06.1992 has been produced. On the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2, learned Appellate Judge found that the Respondent / Tenant is having the principal place of business at 7-A,Easwaran Koil Street, Pondicherry and that the demised premises is only a branch office. Applying the proviso to Section 10(3)(c)(iii) of the Act, learned Rent Control Appellate Authority found that by an order of eviction, it would not cause any hardship to the Tenant because he has already well planned by having himself by having principal office at 7-A,Eswaran Koil Street, Pondicherry and that he has also a godown at Rangapillai Street, which is opposite to the demised premises. By ordering eviction, learned Appellate Authority has found that no hardship would be caused to the Respondent / Tenant. 24. The above findings of the Appellate Authority is very much assailed contending that Proviso to Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is applicable only to section 10(3)(c) of the Act wherein the Landlord seeks the permission as additional accommodation. It is urged that Proviso to Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is not applicable to Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and that the Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the evidence in the light of the proviso to Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. No doubt, learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has gone into the facts and evidence of the case and considered the advantageous position of the Tenant and the order of Eviction would not cause hardship to the Tenant. Clause (c) is an exception where the landlord may ask for additional accommodation in the same building in a part of which he resides, and similarly in the case of non-residential building. It is because of this extra-accommodation, which is required; there is a proviso to clause (e) applicable to clause (c). The reason why the proviso does not refer to clause (a) is obvious. Since such plea is not available to the Tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act or under Section 10(3)(i) of the Act. The proviso is applicable to section 10(3)(c) of the Act and it is enjoined upon the Rent Controller to satisfy himself with reference to Relative Hardship as between the Landlord and the Tenant only while considering the requirement under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. By referring to the hardship to the Tenant and that he is in advantageous position, learned Appellate Authority cannot be said to have committed an error. The contention advanced by the Respondent / Tenant on this score cannot be countenanced. 25. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the Respondent / Tenant has also purchased another premises bearing New Door No.221, Old Door No.107 measuring 38 sq.mt in Rangapillai Street, Pondicherry for Rs.2,41,000/-. Copy of the Sale Deed has been produced. Though the purchase is subsequent to the Impugned Order, the subsequent purchase of the Tenant in the same street is also a relevant factor to be taken note of. 26. Copy of the Sale Deed has been produced. Though the purchase is subsequent to the Impugned Order, the subsequent purchase of the Tenant in the same street is also a relevant factor to be taken note of. 26. A careful consideration of the evidence and the circumstances disclose that the Tenant would not suffer disadvantage by the order of eviction being passed against him. The Appellate Authority has rightly reversed the order of the Rent Controller and has rightly ordered Eviction. The Impugned Order does not suffer from any perversity or erroneous approach warranting interference. This Civil Revision Petition has no merits and the same is bound to fail. 27. For the foregoing reasons, the Order dated 08.04.1997 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (III Additional District Judge), Pondicherry in M.A.No. 32 of 1994, (reversing the order of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry dated 11.04.1994 in H.R.C.O.P.No.29 of 1993) is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of the Respondents. Revision Petitioner / Tenant is directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the Petitioner / Landlord within a period of Two months from the date of this order.