K.A.ABDUL NAZEER Vs. RAMLATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant under an agreement of lease entered into with the landlady is the revision petitioner before us. The apercus of the facts would present that the petition schedule shoproom was rented out to the tenant by the landlady for a monthly rent of Rs.2,800/- on 30.3.2012, as per Ext.A1 lease agreement. The parties have no dispute regarding the contents of the agreement and the agreement is virtually admitted.

(2.) It appears that the landlady, as per Ext.A2 notice dated 6.2.2013, required the tenant/revision petitioner to give her vacant possession of the shoproom on the ground that she requires it for her own bonafide need. Even though Ext.A2 notice was caused to be issued through her counsel, the specific nature of the need was not stated.

(3.) The averments in the rent control petition, however, would show that her specific case is that her husband is now indisposed on account of an accident that he suffered while he was working as a bus conductor and that she has no other means of livelihood which impels her to start a tailoring shop on her own. She asserts that the shoproom, which is owned by her sister along with her, has been released in her name by her sister and, therefore, that she would obtain the shoproom to her own use if it is vacated by the tenant in accordance with her request. The tenant however declined to vacate the petition schedule premises and caused a reply notice to be issued, wherein the need of the landlady as projected in the legal notice was completely refuted.