P. THIRUMAL Vs. KANNIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Tenant challenging the Order of Eviction passed by the learned Subordinate Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vellore, in R.C.A. No.14 of 2004, dated 22.09.2008, confirming the Order of the learned Principal District Munsif/Rent Controller, Vellore, in R.C.O.P. No.60 of 2001, dated 07.09.2004.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, the Respondents/Landlords have filed a Petition for eviction in R.C.O.P. No.60 of 2001, on the ground of act of waste and for own use and occupation. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant is that the Respondents/Landlords had sought the Petition premises for own use and occupation on the ground that the Second Respondent, who is the wife of the First Respondent, was running S.T.D./I.S.D. Booth in a rented premises nearby and the same was looked after by the First Respondent and the Second Respondent was running a Coffee Bar, by name, ''Nassey Coffee Bar '' in a Bunk, but, the said requirement is lost, in view of the fact that the S.T.D./I.S.D. Booth, itself has been closed and the Landlords are also not running the Nassey Coffee bar and therefore, the judgment of the First Appellate Court granting eviction on the ground of own use and occupation is not correct.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents/Landlords would mainly contend that both Courts below have analysed the entire evidence and documents and ultimately, concurrently arrived at the conclusion that the requirement of the building for own use and occupation is bona fide one, hence, there is no need or necessary to set aside the Order passed by the First Appellate Court and he prays to dismiss this Revision.