PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions arise for consideration in these cases. a) Is it imperative that the additional accommodation sought for should be sequel or supplementary to the existing requirement of the landlord

(2.) Rent Control Petition No. 16/98 was filed under S.11(2)(b), 11(8) and 11(4) (ii) of Act 2 of 1965. Building was leased out on 6.9.1983 wherein tenant is conducting a tailoring shop. Landlord wanted the tenanted premises for starting a business in electrical goods and for its expansion and hence eviction was sought for under S.11(8) of the Act. Complaining that on 3.10.1997 tenant demolished a partition wall constructed by the landlord on the northern side of the veranda situated in front of the tenanted premises, petition was laid under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act as well.

(3.) Tenant resisted the petition contending that there is no bona fides in the plea. Petitioner landlord has stated that he required additional accommodation for the purpose of starting business in electrical goods. When he was examined he stated that he wanted the tenanted premises for keeping tables and chairs for hiring and not for expansion of electrical business. With regard to the claim under S.11(4)(ii), tenant took up the stand that the landlord has not raised the plea that the tenant used the building in such a manner as to reduce or destroy its value and utility materially and permanently. Further it is also stated that landlord has constructed a wall in front of the tenanted premises so as to obstruct its view. On the complaint filed by the tenant, according to the tenant, landlord himself demolished the same. In any view, such an act, tenant submits, would not fall within the ambit of S.11(4)(ii) of the Act.