S R CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. S BRAHMANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction which was passed against the petitioner by the Rent Control Court under sub section (8) of Section 11.

(2.) THE case of the landlords is that the petition schedule building and the premises, where the landlords are conducting the jewellery business, are two parts of a larger building and the landlords need additional accommodation for conducting their business more conveniently. Bona fides of the need was disputed and it was also contended that in any event the advantages, which the landlords may gain by getting eviction, will not outweigh the hardship which will be sustained by the tenant on account of the eviction. THE Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and the evidence at trial consisted of Exts.A1 to A3 series, PW1, Exts.B1 to B9 and RW1 apart from the commissioner's evidence as CW1 and the reports and plans submitted by the petitioner as Exts.C1 to C4. THE Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need for additional accommodation is bona fide and it was further concluded that the advantages, which the landlords will gain by getting eviction, will outweigh the hardship if any which may be sustained by the tenant. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed against the tenant.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, today when the case is taken up, both sides placed before us photographs. We are convinced on a careful scrutiny of the photographs that the tenanted premises as well as the premises, where the landlords are presently conducting jewellery business, form parts of one and the very same building.