CHANDRAN Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a Rent Control Petition filed under S.11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 be rejected placing reliance on certain subsequent events brought out in the cross examination without amendment of the pleadings by the tenant is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) Rent Control Petition was filed on 17.6.1996 under S.11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 contending that the tenanted premises is bona fide required by the landlord's son. Landlord's son has completed a technical course from the Thyagaraja Poly Technic and he intends to start a refrigeration service and repairing unit in the petition schedule premises. Landlord is financially sound to purchase the machinery and tools to start the refrigeration service and repairing unit for his son. Son is unemployed, but has the requisite qualification and experience to start the refrigeration service and repairing unit.

(3.) Tenant contended that the attempt of the landlord is only a ruse to evict him. Further it was pointed out by the tenant that he is conducting a medical shop and that the need of the son is not genuine. Further landlord has got other buildings for conducting the business of his son. Tenant also pleaded that he is solely depending upon the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises and no other buildings are available in the locality. Landlord in order to establish his case got himself examined as PW 2. His son was examined as PW 1. A commission was taken out. He was examined as PW 3. Exts.A1 to A5 documents were produced on the side of the landlord. Tenant got himself examined as RW-1 and produced Exts.B1 to B8 documents. C1 is the Commission Report.