THENU Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, to quash Ext. P6 order of the Rent Controller confirmed in appeal and revision, by Exts. P7 and P8 respectively.

(2.) Petitioner is the tenant of a residential building, belonging to 1st respondent. By Ext. P1 notice, 1st respondent required petitioner to vacate the premises, on the ground that he wanted the building for occupation. It was also stated that he wanted to stay in the building and supervise construction of a hospital in the premises. Then followed a series of correspondence, and eventually, a petition for eviction was filed.

(3.) The three courts below concurrently found that the grounds put forward by the landlord were established and that they were bona fide grounds. These findings are assailed, as 'unsupported by pleadings'. Petitioner would contend that the case put forward is an afterthought and that the idea of putting up a hospital where the tenanted building stands, was revealed only in the pleadings. Petitioner submits that the case in Ext. P1 notice, was that 1st respondent wanted to stay in the building and then supervise construction of a hospital building. Petitioner would say that, if the idea was to construct a hospital after demolishing the tenanted building, it should have been so stated, in the petition. It is also alleged that a plan was produced only belatedly, and that even according to the plan, the land is not suitable for construction of a hospital building.