S RUKMANI AMMAL Vs. K RAVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the landlady in HRCOP.No.105/1990, on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, and the petition was filed under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969.

(2.) .The petitioner's case is that the 1st respondent became a tenant under her in respect of the petition premises for running a business, under the name and style of 'Saraswathi General Stores', i.e. for non-residential purpose, on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- and the 2nd respondent is the father of the 1st respondent, who is assisting him in his business. During September 1988, the respondents have caused waste and damages to the demised premises and the petitioner had taken legal proceedings. While so, the respondents without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner used the premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out, by running a Sweet Stall under the name and style of 'Archana Sweets'. The respondents have not even informed about the change of business to the petitioner. The petitioner gave a legal notice, for which, the respondents have not given any reply. The petitioner further stated that her son S.Gopalakrishnan started a business under the name and style of 'M/s.Ponnour Agencies', who is the sole distributor for 'Sathe Biscuits and Chocolates' for Pondicherry and neither the petitioner nor her son is in possession of any non-residential premises within the Pondicherry Municipal limits to carry on the business and therefore, the petitioner bonafidely requires the petition premises for her son's business. The petitioner approached the respondents and demanded vacant possession and they have declined. Hence, the petition.

(3.) .The respondents have filed a common counter, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner already filed two petitions in HRCOP.No.133/1988 and 5/1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and causing damages to the demised premises and both the petitions were dismissed and the appeals preferred by the petitioner in CMA.Nos.9 and 10 of 1990, on the file of the Principle District Judge, Pondicherry were pending. During the pendency of the appeals, the petitioner gave a notice, raising a different ground for eviction, for which the respondents gave a reply on 18.9.1990. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent alone is the tenant under the petitioner and the 1st respondent, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, is helping his father in his business. The petition premises was taken for the purpose of running a business under the name and style of 'Saraswathi General Stores' is not correct. But, the premises was taken for the purpose of carrying on business. There was no agreement between the petitioner and the respondents that a particular business alone should be carried on in the petition premises. The respondent also stated that he was running the business in the sale of "Coffee Powder" Centre in the demised premises and then started "Match Business", under the name and style of 'Shanmugam Match Works' and some time thereafter, he started 'Rajeswari Fire Works and then, he was running rice business and again he opened a General Merchant Shop under the name and style of 'Saraswathi General Stores' and now he is running a Sweet Stall, under the name and style of 'Archana Sweets' in the petition premises. In the absence of any specific agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner's claim that the respondents should carry on a particular type of business is not valid. The requirement of the petition premises for the petitioner's son is not bonafide. The petitioner's son S.Gopalakrishnan started business under the name and style of M/s.Ponnour Agencies is not admitted. It is stated that S.Gopalakrishnan is an Advocate, carrying on his profession as an Advocate and therefore, he cannot carry on any business unless he suspends his practice. Having lost the earlier proceedings for eviction, the petitioner has filed the present petition with untenable allegations.