SAROJINI ANIMAL Vs. SOHANLAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlady is the revision petitioner. The landlady filed H. R. C. O. P. No. 122 of 1980 under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 for her husbands occupation for non-residential purposes, since the business of the husband which is carried on in the front portion of the residential building, which belongs to the landlady, has expanded. The tenant resisted the application stating that the landladys husband is carrying on business in her own building and that, therefore, the requirement is not bona fide.

(2.) The Rent Controller allowed the application. On appeal preferred by the tenant, appellate authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and dismissed the eviction petition. Hence this revision by the landlady.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the approach of the appellate authority that the landladys husband is carrying on his business in her building, is not correct, since the business carried on by her husband is in the residential building of the landlady and, that therefore, the conclusion of the appellate authority that the husband of the landlady is already in occupation of non-residential building is not correct, since the dominaat purpose for which the existing building of the landlady is put to is residential, though in a portion of it the business is carried on by the husband of the landlady Section 103 (3) (a) (iii) of the said Act reads as follows: