RAJA D.SUNDARSINGH Vs. SUNDARASELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder as landlords and tenant. The landlords filed R.C.O.P. seeking eviction of the tenant invoking Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground of personal occupation, so to say for Sundaravalli, the first petitioner, being the daughter of the second petitioner and one of the landlords, for carrying on her business in pharmacy in that demised premises which is being used by the tenant as a T.V. mechanic shop. The tenant resisted the application.

(2.) UP went the trial, on the side of the landlords, the first petitioner- Sundaraselvi examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked and on the side of the tenant, he was examined himself as R.W.1 and one Jeevanandam was examined as R.W.2, but no documents were marked. Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Whereupon, the appeal was preferred for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, over which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds.

(3.) PER contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the tenant, the learned Counsel for the landlords would pyramid his arguments; warp and the woof of the same would run thus: