N DAKSHINAMOORTHY Vs. ALPHONSEA CELESTINE KAMALA BENJAMINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in H.R.C.O.P.No.137 of 1992 on the file of Rent Controller, Pondicherry is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) LANDLADY claimed eviction of tenant on the ground that she requires scheduled building for her additional accommodation. Tenant is occupying the downstair portion of the building and landlady is occupying the first floor. LANDLADY claimed possession on the ground that she is not in a position to climb up in first floor in view of her pain in her knee and she is also an Asthamatic patient. Tenant is making use of the ground floor portion for the purpose of his tyre business and the smoke emanating therefrom has affected her health which requires constant medical attention. LANDLADY's father who is 73 years old on the date of petition is also having chronic knee problem and he also requires constant medical attention. He is also advised not to climb up staircase. According to landlady, in view of their illness, they require better environment and space occupied by them is not sufficient. They require the scheduled building as additional accommodation for their own occupation. A notice was issued asking tenant to vacate the premises for which a reply was sent refusing to surrender vacant possession. Eviction petition was filed thereafter.

(3.) I heard the counsel on the both sides. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the application for eviction itself is not maintainable and the same is filed without any bona fides. It is also argued that subsequent events have not been taken into consideration by Rent Controller or by Appellate Authority. It was argued that there is no pleading by landlord about the relative hardships and absence of pleadings will entail the dismissal of eviction petition itself.