S D PHARMACY Vs. N SARASWATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s.S.D.Pharmacy, the revision petitioner, is aggrieved by the order of eviction concurrently passed in respect of the building in which their Chittur Branch is accommodated. The landlady sought for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. The ground of arrears of rent does not survive for consideration as eviction under that ground was averted by the tenant by liquidating the arrears during the pendency of the proceedings. The need projected by the landlady under Section 11(3) was that her family is finding it difficult to pull on with the pension of her husband who retired as Veterinary Doctor from Government Service and the meagre rent which she is getting from her tenants and therefore, she needs the building for starting business in hardware and sanitary ware.

(2.) THE bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended that the claim is only a ruse to evict the tenant so that thereafter the building can be let out on a higher rent to the new tenants. It was pointed out that adjacent to the petition schedule building, there is another larger building belonging to the landlady occupied by one Achutha Pharmacy and if the need is bona fide, the landlady could have sought to evict the tenant of that building rather than the petition schedule building which is small in size. THE Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence, which consisted of oral evidence of landlady as PW1, Exts.A1 series and the oral evidence of RW1 and commission report Ext.C1, came to the conclusion that the need is bona fide. On the basis of that conclusion, the eviction order was passed.

(3.) WE have very anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. WE have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. WE remind ourselves of the contours of the jurisdiction under Section 20 in which we are presently sitting.