MUHAMMAD Vs. SINNAMALU AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in the revision who is the landlord sought eviction of the petitioners who were in occupation of the first floor of a two storeyed building under the tenant who was the first respondent in the petition for eviction Apart from the allegation that rent was in arrears that question is no longer relevant the main ground on which the landlord claimed eviction was under S.11(3) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which provides that:

(2.) In support of this ground the landlord bad alleged that her husband Pw. 1 was running a stationery business and a medical shop in the ground floor, that her son Balagopalan was conducting a typewriting institute in a rented building some distance away in the same town and that if the premises in question which consist of three rooms and a hall are vacated Pw. 1 could expand his business and Balagopalan could move his institute into them. This ground was accepted by the authorities below which have agreed in granting the landlord's petition for eviction.

(3.) The finding that the ground put forward by the landlord is true and bona fide has thus become final and is not liable to challenge in this revision. Mr. Achan for the petitioners however contended that even so the petition must fail as neither Pw. 1 nor Balagopalan is a member of the landlord's family and in any event as neither of them is dependent upon the landlord.