RETNAKARAN Vs. THIMOTHY DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER mere possession of a part of a building without occupation would satisfy the ingredients of Section 11 (8) of Act 2 of 1965, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) RENT Control Petition was filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction under Sections 11 (2) and 11 (3) of Act 2 of 1965. Both the RENT Control Petition and the Appellate Authority have proceeded on the basis that Section 11 (3) was misquoted, facts would indicate that the claim is essentially under Section 11 (8 ). For disposal of the case we will proceed as if the claim raised by the landlord is under section 11 (8) of the act. RENT Control Court dismissed the petition. However, Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction under section 11 (8 ).

(3.) TENANT has got a specific contention that landlord is not conducting the hotel business in that part of the building which is in his possession. Petition I. A. NO. 2429/95 was filed before the Rent Control Court by the tenant for a direction to the landlord to produce account books, salestax assessment in respect of the hotel business and also the attendance register of employees. Landlord did not produce any records. Landlord tried to explain stating that he is not conducting the hotel business in a flourishing manner due to lack of space and road frontage and therefore cannot attract sufficient customers and hence he is not keeping any account books or attendance registrar of the employees. Commissioner however stated that there are two workers in the hotel and that the hotel is being run. No details have been furnished by the landlord to establish that he is conducting any hotel. He has also not produced either municipal licence or licence from any of the statutory authorities to show that he is conducting the hotel business. Landlord is no more, and the legal heirs maintained the stand that they are continuing the hotel business. They have also not produced any document to establish that they are conducting the hotel business. Legal heirs may be in possession of the building but they are not conducting any business warranting additional accommodation. Mere possession would not satisfy the ingredients of Section 11 (8) of the Act.