A.C.HARISH KUMAR Vs. C.M.SUGUNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord sought eviction of the revision petitioner from the tenanted premises under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. His case is that the monthly rent payable by the revision petitioner is Rs.200.00 and the rent is in arrears with effect from 12.4.1991. As he is running a business under the name and style C.M.Wood Industries which requires a show room for its effective running, he bona fide requires the tenanted premises for the aforesaid purpose. He further alleges that the revision petitioner is in possession of other buildings suitable to his requirements and he is not depending upon the income derived from the business set up in the tenanted premises. It is his further case that the revision petitioner has acquired another suitable building which is reasonably sufficient for his need.

(3.) THE trial court after raising proper points for trial permitted both sides to adduce evidence and after considering the evidence consisting of Exts.A1 to A20, B1 to B4, X1 to X3, C1 to C4 as well as the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1 ordered eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3). However, the claim under Section 11(4)(iii) was negatived.