K L SUGANTHI Vs. T SAMBALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLADY in R.C.O.P.No.44 of 1992 on the file of Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif, Salem is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) LANDLADY, claimed eviction on the ground that tenant has committed wilful default in paying rent and the building is required for her own occupation, i.e., for the occupation of her husband and sons for their business. Scheduled building is admittedly a non-residential building.

(3.) WITH regard to the claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide own use, appellate authority held that main reason for filing eviction petition was that landlady's husband and sons are being harassed by police from North India since they are causing obstruction in the manufacture and sale of silver jewels. The F.I.R. written in Hindi was refused to be relied on by appellate authority on the ground that true translation was not placed before it. Appellate authority also held that there is no clear evidence to show that husband and sons are not in possession of any non-residential premises. Order of eviction was set aside by dismissing the same. Appeal was allowed.