KOTTI Vs. A M RANGABHASHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, who suffered an eviction order concurrently, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The respondent herein is the owner of the premises bearing door No.64, Kilpauk Garden Colony, measuring an extent of 177.66 sq.ft., which is in the occupation of the revision petitioner, as tenant, where he is carrying on a business, under the name and style of Koti Stores. The rent agreed for the premises is Rs.1000/- and as pleaded in paragraph-5 of the petition, the landlord had also received a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance, contravening the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act. The landlord's son is one A.S. Govindaraj @ Anand. It seems after the death of his wife, Mr. Govindaraj migrated from Pondicherry to Madras, winding up his business, which he was carrying on, at Pondicherry. According to the petitioner, his son desires to continue the same business, since he had the experience of 4 1/2 years. In this view, the petitioner/landlord filed R.C.O.P., for the eviction of the tenant, on the ground, that his son requires the premises, for his business establishment, which is bona fide.

(3.) The tenant reiterating the history of his possession, including a residential portion, which he gave up, at later point of time, opposed the application, that the petitioner is occupying a portion of the building and therefore, if at all, the petition ought to have been filed only for additional accommodation and not under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The further contention of the tenant is that, in case of his eviction, the hardship, which is going to suffer, will outweigh the advantage enjoyed by the landlord. It is further contended by the tenant, that the petitioner's son had no intention, to start any business, in his name and in fact, he is not carrying on any business also.