THIRUMUTHY Vs. THOMAS PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, in this revision under Section 20 challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected in the RCP by the landlord was the need to conduct carton business in the petition schedule premises, which according to the tenant, is only a shed. The bona fides of the need was stiffly disputed by the tenant, who contended that the landlord and his wife are in possession of extensive vacant space adjacent to the petition schedule premises. If the need is bona fide, the landlord could very well put up a new building upon the above vacant site. It was also contended by the tenant that he is entitled for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Both sides adduced evidence before the Rent Control Court and that court on appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need projected was bona fide. It was also held that RCP was not liable to fail by virtue of either of the provisos to sub section (3) of Section. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed.

(2.) The Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the order of eviction was confirmed.

(3.) In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed very persuasive arguments before us on the basis of the grounds raised. Sri.Chitambaresh referred to the schedule description in the Rent Control Petition and submitted that, even going by that description, it is clear that the landlord and his wife are having extensive areas of vacant land on the western and northern sides of the petition schedule premises. The petition schedule building is just a shed and if the landlord genuinely wants to conduct carton business, it is open to the landlord to put up a shed on the vacant lands and it is not at all necessary to evict the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that the landlord is having other businesses not only in Palkkad District but also in Coimbatore District of Tamilnadu. The need is only a ruse. The learned senior counsel submitted that the revision petitioner is prepared to offer considerable enhancement in the monthly rent. The learned counsel submitted that if this Court is inclined to confirm the order of eviction, at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner, so that he can find out a suitable building for locating his business.