MUMTAZ BEGUM Vs. SIKANDAR HAYATHUNGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 30.06.2005 passed in RCA No.19 of 2004 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, reversing the order dated 07.04.2004 passed in RCOP No.37 of 2001 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, this civil revision petition is focussed by the landlady.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision, would develop her argument to the effect that the landlady clearly proved her bona fides in requiring the premises for her son's business. Even though in the petition or in the pre litigation notice, there may not be any details relating to the business and also about her son's requirement, while adducing evidence, the landlady's husband/P.W.1 clearly and categorically spelt out that the premises is required for the son of the landlady. In fact, cross examination also was done challenging the actual requirement of the landlady. THE parties litigated understanding their respective pleas. In such a case, it would not lie in the mouth of the tenant to contend that there were lack of pleadings etc.