ASRAM MOTORS Vs. BINA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant (appellant) has been ordered to be evicted on the ground that the landlady (respondent) bona fide requires the premises in occupation of the tenant for the purposes of conducting her own business. The tenant is in appeal by special leave.

(2.) The courts below have found that the landlady does require the premises in the tenant's occupation for the purposes of business and that the requirement is bona fide. It has also been found that there is no evidence to show that the landlady owns other premises wherein this business can be carried on and that the place where this business is presently carried on is taken by the appellant on rent. The High court, in a petition filed by the tenant under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, has affirmed the findings of the court also.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the tenant, that the jurisdiction of the High court under Section 25 is wide and that the High court erred in not considering the contention on behalf of the tenant that the landlady was a member of a joint family which owned several other properties, some of which were available for the purposes of carrying on her business and that a deed of Partition had not in fact been acted upon.