ARUMUGHAM Vs. R LEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Court was pronounced by Bhaskaran, J.-- This Rent Control Revision is filed by the respondent in R.C.P. No. 119/1994 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority have allowed the claim of the landlord.

(2.) According to the landlord, the original tenant was the wife of the respondent in the R.C.P. and after her death, the present tenant executed a fresh rent deed on 4-12-1991 agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs. 350. Originally the landlord's father was conducting bakery business in the entire building. When he became old and was unable to make bakery items he decided to continue the business by purchasing bakery items from outside and to do business in a portion of the building and the remaining portion was let out to the respondent's wife. For that purpose a temporary partition was made of the room where the bakery business was conducted. After the death of the father, the petitioner continued the business. The husband of the petitioner is not having any source of income. Both the landlord and her husband are now engaged in the bakery business. They want to expand the business and for that purpose the petition schedule shop room also is required. There are several other rooms available for the respondent in the R.C.P. to shift his business.

(3.) The tenant contended that he is not in possession of any other shop room. The petitioner's husband has his own business. There is sufficient space available with the petitioner and there is no need for evicting the tenant to expand the business. There are no other building available in the locality for shifting the business. The comparative hardship which may be caused to the respondent would be much higher if an order of eviction is passed.