RAJAMANI Vs. MOHAMMED RASHEED AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner herein. The premises was let out to the petitioner for both residential as well as for running a mess. As the respondents required the premises for occupation of their son Sheik Mohammed, the petitioner was requested to vacate the premises. As the tenant had refused to vacate the premises, the respondents filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 21 of 1992 under Sec. 10(3)(i) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 on the ground that the building is bona fide required for the occupation of the son of the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner-tenant resisted the eviction petition contending that the original letting was for only non-residential purpose and that the claim of the respondents requiring the petition premises for the occupation of their son, is not bona fide.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller who tried the petition, held on the evidence that the original letting was for both residential and non-residential purposes, that the claim of the respondents/landlords that the building is required for the personal occupation of their son, is bona fide and therefore, allowed the petition by his order dated 25.2.1993. Taking into account the nature of the business conducted by the petitioner, the Rent Controller granted six months time to vacate the premises.