K P SREEJAYAN Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though apparently attractive grounds have been raised in these revisions and Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous and persuasive arguments in support of all the grounds, we are unable to find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed under sub Section 3 of Section 11. Sri.Rajendran, in fact, placed before us the photographs of the building where the landlord is presently having his clinic. He also drew our attention to the plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner of the above building. We do not think that there is space or facility available in that building for the landlord to conduct the proposed business of selling spectacles in the above building which is in fact a small building situated in the residential compound of the landlord.

(2.) Having regard to the well defined contours of the jurisdiction under Section 20, we are not in a position to say that the conclusions concurrently arrived at by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in favour of the landlord are vitiated.

(3.) The revisions necessarily will have to fail and will stand dismissed. We dismiss the revisions.