S T NEHRU Vs. KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the landlord, who had preferred a petition in R.C.O.P.No.l of 1994 before the learned Rent Controller, Karaikal, seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises, namely, a non-residential building bearing Municipal Door No.5l/1, Vayaikarai Street, Karaikal, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the purpose of running a finance company under the name and style of "Thangasamy Finance" in the same place. 1.2 THE above said eviction proceedings were resisted by the respondent-tenant on the ground that the petitioner-landlord is owning, four shops and therefore, he is not entitled to evict the respondent-tenant under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, which reads as follows:

(2.) MR.T.Susindran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, questioning the legality and propriety of the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 6.10.1994, made in R.C.O.P.No.l of 1994, as confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, by order dated 14.2.1997, made in R.C.A.No.3 of 1995, contends that the revision petitioner's requirement of the petition premises is bona fide, as he is not in occupation of all the non-residential premises. 2.2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-landlord brought to my notice that even though the petitioner-landlord is owning four shops (non-residential premises), he is in occupation of only one premises, where he is running an electrical shop and he is requiring the petition premises to run a finance company under the name and style of "Thangasamy Finance" for which he had already obtained licence from the Tahsildar. 2.3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-landlord also contends that the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority have not gone into the relative hardship caused to the petitioner-landlord by refusing the eviction of the respondent/tenant.

(3.) IF that be so, 1 am of the considered opinion that both the authorities below have erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-landlord to evict the respondent-tenant merely on the ground that the petitioner-landlord is owning three, other non-residential premises, while the fact remains that he is not in occupation of ail the premises except the one where he is running an electrical shop, and without appreciating the relative hardship to which the petitioner-landlord is subjected to by the refusal of eviction of the respondent-tenant, in spite or the fact that the petitioner-landlord had already obtained licence from the Tahsildar for running a finance company for which he requires the petition premises.