MUMTAZ BEGUM Vs. S. GOUTHAM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner/Landlady filed this revision petition against the order of Rent Control Appellate Authority made in RCA No.4 of 2005 reversing the order of the Rent Controller made in RCOP No.61 of 2000.

(2.) For the sake of convenience the petitioner/landlady referred as revision petitioner and the tenant in the original petition is referred as respondent.

(3.) The revision petitioner/landlady filed this revision petition to direct the respondent to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the petition premises to the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu (Building Lease and Rent Control) Act. Briefly the case of the revision petitioner is that the respondent is a tenant under the revision petitioner. The said tenancy is a monthly tenancy and the respondent is carrying on business in the property. Further, the case of the revision petitioner is that revision petitioner's son Dr.Asif Baig is highly qualified dental Surgeon and he completed his Masters Degree in October 1999 and started practising. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioner's son made arrangement to start a dental clinic at Pallavaram and for that he has got all the instruments which are necessary for the purpose of running dental clinic. Further, at present, the revision petitioner's son practising only at revision petitioner's residence for few hours in a day and Pallavaram is 15 kms from the residence of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner's son has got sufficient funds to invest and run the above said dental clinic. The revision petitioner and her husband requesting the respondent to vacate and hand over the possession for her son's occupation to run a dental clinic in the said property. But, the respondent not yet vacated the property. Further, the revision petitioner's husband Dr.Amanulla could not run the clinic at Pallavaram on account of his ill health. The premises occupied by the present respondent is most convenient and suitable place for the revision petitioner's son to run a dental clinic. Therefore, the revision petitioner sent a lawyer notice to the respondent determining and terminating the tenancy by the end of 31.07.2000. The respondent sent a reply notice dated 18.06.2000 with false allegations. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed the petition prayed for to quit and deliver possession to the revision petitioner.