RAJAN Vs. SADANANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether on the death of the landlord, the requirement of additional accommodation of the landlord would extinguish without devolving on his legal heirs. The further question is whether the expression "personal use" is personal to the landlord or whether it would enure to legal heirs on the landlord's death

(2.) Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent -- landlord under S.11(8) of Act 2 of 1965. Landlord was conducting business in footwear styled as "Thalan Footwears", adjacent to the tenanted premises. Tenant is conducting medical shop by name Ranji Medicals in the tenanted premises. The premises where the landlord was conducting footwear business has no road frontage. Landlord wanted to expand his business and unless he obtains the tenanted premises he would not be able to run the business profitably. Tenanted premises is situated on the southern side of main road which lies east west. Petition schedule building has got two floors. There are two rooms on the ground floor. Eastern room is the petition schedule building wherein respondent is conducting medical shop. Adjacent building on the west is occupied by the landlord's brother. Landlord had contended that his requirement for additional accommodation was bona fide and he had also satisfied the test of comparative hardship. Tenant resisted the petition contending that there is no bona fides in the plea. Further it was also stated that the room in which footwear business is conducted is part of a larger building which takes in the tenanted premises also. There is no bona fide in the requirement for additional space by the landlord for running the footwear business. Further it is contended that the space available with the landlord is sufficient for his requirement. It is stated that the landlord was in possession of vacant room on the first floor and the test of comparative hardship would not favour passing of an order of eviction under S.11(8).

(3.) Landlord was examined as PW 1. Commissioner was examined as PW 4. PWs.2, 3 and 5 were also examined on the side of the landlord. PWs. 2 and 3 are the owners of buildings in the locality. They were examined to show that alternate buildings are available in the locality. PW.5 is the Sales Tax Consultant of PW. 1 and he was examined to show that there is scope for expansion and earning of greater profits if the landlord gets more space for running the business. RWs. 1 to 5 were examined on the side of the tenant and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. Ext X1 file was also marked through witness. Rent Control Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that requirement is not bona fide and consequently dismissed the petition. Landlord took up the matter in appeal and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. Hence this revision. The landlord died while the matter was pending before this Court and the legal heirs got themselves impleaded.