P R ANANDESWARY AMMA Vs. C A VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision. THE original landlord, who expired during the pendency of the rent control appeal, leased out the tenanted premises to the revision petitioner in the year 1993 on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. THE original landlord sought eviction of the revision petitioner under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11 (3). It was alleged that the revision petitioner defaulted in paying rent from May 2002 and the younger daughter of the deceased son of the original landlord and her husband, who are depending on the landlord, bona fide need the petition schedule building for starting a computer centre. It was further alleged that the revision petitioner has other sources of income and the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building is not the sole source of income of the revision petitioner. It was also alleged that there are other suitable rooms available in the locality to shift the business of the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE revision petitioner, who resisted the claim, contended that she, who is conducting ration shop in a tenanted premises, is mainly depending on the income derived from that and no other alternate accommodation is available in the locality to shift her business. It is also contended that the need is not valid and is only a ruse for eviction . THE allegation regarding the default in payment of rent was also denied.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. WE have also perused the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. As the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) is subject to the tenant's right under Section 11 (2)(c), we are not interfering with the same.