LAKSHMIDAS VED Vs. PARAG MAWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been directed against the order and decree, dated 15.7.98 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in R.C.A.No.442 of 1995, confirming the order of eviction dated 10.4.1995 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (House Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P.No.1548 of 1993 on his file.

(2.) THE short facts are:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner refuted the above contention by submitting, the respondent set up his business at Coimbatore as he thought it will take some time for him to get vacant possession of the shop through court proceedings and, as a matter of fact, he took his wife also to Coimbatore but the weather and climatic condition at Coimbatore are not suitable to them and, hence, he lifted his business to Madras and since he could not secure any non-residential building, he set up his business in a portion of the house where his father is residing as a tenant. THE fact that the respondent was carrying on business at Coimbatore is not disputed by the revision petitioner and according to him, the revision petitioner is still carrying on business at Coimbatore. THE learned counsel for the respondent submitted, in the above set of evidence it is clear the respondent was carrying on business at Coimbatore. It was also pointed out the revision petitioner in the chief-examination though had stated through one David, his friend, he verified that the respondent is not carrying on business in a portion of the residential premises occupied by his father, in the cross-examination he had categorically admitted the said David did not go to the residential house of the father of the respondent which shows no verification has been done.