S LOGANATHAN Vs. V THIRUMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Rent Control Appeal preferred by tenant, which was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside the eviction of the tenant from the petition premises ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of own use and occupation and additional accommodation.

(2.) The landlord as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the respondent / tenant on the grounds that the petition shop was used for different purpose other than for which it was let out, that the tenant has caused nuisance and also on the ground that the petition premises consisting of shop and godown is required for the purpose of carrying on business by the landlord and also on the ground that the petition premises is required for additional accommodation. To the notice caused on 21.6.1999, no reply was sent by the respondent / tenant. On these grounds, the petitioner / landlord sought for eviction of the respondent / tenant from the petition premises.

(3.) The respondent as tenant filed counter wherein the tenancy and quantum of rent of Rs.1100/- per month is admitted. It is further stated in the counter that the petition premises comprises of two portions bearing Door Nos. 605 and 606 situate at N.H. Road, Coimbatore. The portion bearing Door No. 605 is on the southern side and it was let out to tenant in the year 1974 for the purpose of doing metal business. The northern portion bearing Door No. 606 has been let out to the other person, who is carrying on steel business in the name and style of Meena Steels. It is stated that the respondent / tenant is doing metal business in the name and style of Murugan Metal Mart. It is denied that the petition premises were used for different purpose other than for which it was let out. It is also denied that the respondent is melting copper and allied materials, which emit toxic smell. It is also stated that no melting work is carried on inside the shop. It is further stated that the petitioner is employed in construction work under somebody and he does not carry on any business. In the Rent Control Original Petition, it is not stated as to what is the nature of business the petitioner intends to carry on in the petition premises. It is denied that the petition premises is required for additional accommodation. It is further stated that the petitioner is owning a building in the same locality. If the respondent is directed to vacate the petition premises, much hardship will be caused which will outweigh the advantage to the petitioner / landlord. On these grounds, the respondent / tenant sought for dismissal of the petition.