K R VENKITARAMANAN Vs. RAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Landlord is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under S.11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Need urged by the landlord is as follows:

(2.) Tenant resisted the petition stating that she is in possession of the tenanted premises for a number of years. It is stated that she is conducting typewriter repair service in the premises by name "Prompt Services". Further it is stated that the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises is the main source of her livelihood and no other building is available in the locality to shift her business. It is also stated that the landlord has earlier filed R. C. P. No. 173 of 1982 for conducting the business by his second son and the same was dismissed. The present attempt is only a ruse to evict her.

(3.) Landlord got himself examined as PW. 1. and Exts. A1 to A5 documents were marked. On the side of the tenant RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. B1 to B5 were marked. RW. 2 is the Commissioner. Ext. C1 is the Commission Report and Ext. C2 is the plan. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need urged is not bona fide and dismissed the petition which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition has been preferred.