ROHINI KUMAR Vs. HASSAN MOHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the landlord of the petition premises who failed in the appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Myladuthurai.

(2.) THE petitioner/landlord preferred the rent control petitions in R.C.O.P. No. 24 of 1994 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Myladuthurai under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) for eviction of the respondents/tenants on the ground that the petitioner requires the building for his own use and occupation, as the landlord of the building where he is running the business under the name and style of "Murugan Medicals" requires him to vacate the same and that further he has proposed to start a new business under the name and style of "Yogam Benefit Fund Ltd." in the first floor of the building which is also required for his own use and occupation.

(3.) SIMILARLY , the petitioner filed R.C.O.P. No. 27 of 1994 under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 on the ground that the respondents have started to carry on a new business against the terms of the rental agreement and they have also committed waste to the premises in running such business. The learned Rent Controller has accepted the contention of the petitioner and held that the respondents have put the building to a different user than that of the user for which it was leased and, therefore, allowed the petition as prayed for and the respondents have preferred the appeal in R.C.A. No. 4 of 1996 and it was allowed. Hence, the revision in C.R.P. No. 1937 of 1999.