LAWS(MAD)-2001-8-123

MUTHIAH Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

Decided On August 13, 2001
MUTHIAH Appellant
V/S
SUBRAMANIAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD is the petitioner.

(2.) THE landlord filed petition under Sec.10(3) of the Rent Control Act for eviction on the ground of own use of the petition mentioned premises. THE case of the petitioner is that O.S.No.268 of 1998 was filed in the Sub Court, Dharapuram for partition and that suit ended in compromise and final decree was passed on 7.8.1991 and as per that decree, the petition mentioned property was allotted to the share of the petitioner and the respondent who was the tenant already in the petition mentioned premises became the tenant under the petitioner. After the partition decree the respondent/ tenant was informed about the ownership of the suit property. THE petitioner contends that he is doing business in cattle feeds and other goods at new door No.218 and old door No.43/A at Dharapuram and that premises is not allotted to the share of the brother of the petitioner, and the petitioner is doing his business in door No.218 by paying monthly rent of Rs.200 to his brother. Whileso, the brother of the petitioner sent notice to the petitioner demanding that premises for his own use and the petitioner also gave assurance to him that he would deliver possession of the same. THE petitioner had also informed about this to the respondent and the respondent also informed him that he would vacate and deliver possession of the petitioner mentioned premises in the month of Thai 1992. THE petition mentioned property is required for the own use of the petitioner. So, the petitioner issued notice to the respondent. Since the petitioner is running his business in a rented premises, he requires the petition mentioned property for his own use.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now running his business in a rented premises which belongs to his brother and his brother wants that premises for his own use and the petitioner requires the premises for his own occupation for running his business and there is bona fide on the part of the petitioner in asking the petition mentioned premises for own occupation.