NEW WOODLANDS HOTEL Vs. VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the tenant of a building from which he is sought to be evicted by the landlord". The schedule building was constructed with separate wash basin, closet etc. attached to the rooms in it for the purpose of running a Boarding and Lodging establishment. It was leased out to the petitioners as per a rent deed, Ext. P1 dated 5-4-1957. The period under Ext. P1 expired on 15-4-1962 and notice was issued to the revision petitioners to surrender the building. A reply was sent refusing to surrender. So, the landlord filed an application for eviction on two grounds, firstly that he requires the schedule building for his own occupation for expanding his hotel business known by the name 'Durbar Lodge', and secondly that the revision petitioners have in their possession two buildings which are very big and spacious and reasonably sufficient for their requirements. In this connection it may be mentioned that the revision petitioners are also engaged in hotel business and they are one of the pioneer hoteliers here. The Rent Controller found that the second ground is not established but that the landlord's claim for eviction on the ground that he requires the building for expanding his hotel business has been established and his need is bona fide. The Rent Controller further found that though the landlord has in his possession a building, he must be permitted to recover this building as well for the purpose of expanding his present business. On that ground eviction was ordered. On appeal by the tenant the Rent Controller's order was confirmed. On further revision before the District Judge two grounds were urged by the revision petitioners against the order for eviction. First, it was contended that the petitioners depend for their livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business in this building, and secondly that there are no sustainable special reasons for ordering eviction when the landlord has a building of his own in his possession in the city. The District Judge found against the plea that the petitioner depends for his livelihood on the income derived from this building. The District Judge also found that there are special reasons for ordering eviction of the petitioner though the landlord has a building of his own in his possession in the city. It is against this order that this revision petition is filed under S.115, C.P.C.

(2.) Though the finding that the landlord requires the building bona fide for his occupation was also challenged in this revision, the petitioner's counsel has not succeeded in showing that the said finding is in any way erroneous. The main ground urged by the counsel for the revision petitioner is that the special reason stated for ordering eviction of the petitioner is legally unsustainable. According to the petitioner, though the landlord has established a bona fide need for the building, there are no special reasons for ordering eviction in as much as the landlord has a building of his own in his possession in the city. The District Judge and the subordinate Tribunals, according to the revision petitioners have only stated that the revision petitioners have other buildings to carry on their business and the total income that they may get hereafter will only be reduced to a small extent by ordering surrender of this building and that this is no legal ground at all. To understand that contention it is necessary to read the provision of law under which this question arises for consideration. S.11(3) and the first proviso are in the following terms:-

(3.) So, I dismiss this revision petition with costs; but in the circumstances of this case, a further period of three months is allowed to the revision petitioners to vacate the building.