LAWS(MAD)-2003-12-125

SHANMUGA SUNDARAM Vs. A S KAMALAM

Decided On December 19, 2003
SHANMUGA SUNDARAM Appellant
V/S
A.S.KAMALAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 8.7.2002 rendered in R.C.A.No.46 of 1999 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 12.8.1999 made in H.R.C.O.P.No.74 of 1998 by the Rent Controller, Pondicherry.

(2.) On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that the landlady/respondent herein has filed a petition for eviction on the ground of personal occupation for her business purposes stating that the tenant/petitioner herein came into possession in the year 1979 for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.300/= and the same having come to be raised, at the time of filing the petition, it was Rs.750/= p.m.; that the landlady was in possession of another building on rental basis and was carrying on business; that she was asked to vacate the said premises by her landlord; that she wanted her own building for doing her business; that there were civil litigations between the parties in O.S.No.628 of 1997; that since the tenant did not vacate the premises, she has filed the present petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal occupation.

(3.) The tenant contested the petition alleging that the tenancy period was renewed for a later period up to 1999 and as such, the petition for eviction is pre-mature; that the landlady's husband has been carrying on business and she is only a house-wife and therefore, her claim for eviction of the tenant for the purpose of her own business is not bonafide; that the landlady and her husband are permanently residing at Madras and doing business under the name and style of 'Hotel Nayagara Private Limited' at Kodambakkam; that the tenant has also obtained permanent injunction in O.S.No.628 of 1997 to safeguard his possession and therefore, this petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.