KALIJANI AMMA Vs. SAROJINI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the Rent Control Court bound to examine the question whether it would be financially viable for the tenant to conduct the business in the building available in the locality under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) and also under Section 11 (4) (iii) of Act 2 of 1965 is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) RENT Control petition was filed under Sections 11 (2) (b), 11 (3) and 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. Landlady wanted the tenanted premises for the purpose of her dependent son who wanted to start business in cutlery and allied products. Tenant is conducting grocery business in the tenanted premises. Landlady submits that subsequent to the lease tenant constructed a building No. 135-A in Ward No. II of Mulivar Panchavat, which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement. Consequently eviction was also sought under section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act.

(3.) LANDLADY then filed R. C. A. No. 22 of 1997 against the order passed by the Rent Control Court rejecting the claim under Section 11 (3 ). Tenant filed R. C. A. No. 21 of 1997 against the order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. Both the appeals were heard together by the Appellate Authority. On facts Appellate authority found that door numbers II/110 and II/112 are in the possession of the father of P. W. 1 who is conducting business by name M. S. G. M. Traders. It was noticed that his father was conducting business in the premises prior to the filing of the rent control petition. It was also noticed that door No. II/111 is being used as jeep shed from 1984 onwards. Appellate Authority therefore concluded that the need urged by the landlady is genuine and bona fide. Appellate Authority also examined whether the tenant is entitled to get the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) especially in the light of the plea of the landlady under Section 11 (4) (iii ). Appellate Authority concluded that the tenant is not entitled to get the benefit of the second proviso. Since the building II/135-A owned by the tenant is sufficient for his requirement appeal filed by the landlady was allowed and order of eviction was passed under sections 11 (3) as well as under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same tenant has come up in this revision.