RETNAKARAN Vs. ROSY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether mere possession of a part of a building without occupation would satisfy the ingredients of S.11(8) of Act 2 of 1965, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent landlord for eviction under S.11(2) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Both the Rent Control Petition and the Appellate Authority have proceeded on the basis that S.11(3) was misquoted, facts would indicate that the claim is essentially under S.11(8). For disposal of the case we will proceed as if the claim raised by the landlord is under S.11(8) of the Act. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. However, Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction under S.11(8).

(3.) Petition schedule building bearing number XXV/446 lies in front of room No. XXV/445 on the western side which is in the possession of the original landlord. Petition schedule building has a length of 12 ft. and width of 7 ft. and it was closed on three sides with wooden planks and roofed with asbestos. The whole building which takes in the tenanted premises as well as the portion occupied by the landlord has got road frontage of 13 ft. 8 inches of which portion occupied by the landlord has a width of 7 ft. 4 inches whereas the petition schedule building has a width of 6 ft. 4 inches. After providing cash counter width of the building in the possession of the landlord is only 2ft. 11 inches. Lack of proper road frontage affects the business carried on by the landlord. This is not a case where landlord requires additional space but he wanted the tenant to vacate to get more road frontage. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the reasoning of the Appellate Authority, which reads as follows:-