DR. C. PADMANABHAN Vs. VARADAPPA GOUNDER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) and Sec. 14( 1 )(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1986, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act. The case of landlord is as under:-

(2.) The case of the tenant is as follows:-

(3.) It is not correct to state that the petitioner is a famous Doctor. He was a Doctor in the Government Hospital, who retired about six months back. So far the petitioner has not started his profession in Salem. He has no clinic in Salem. At no point of time the petitioner was having his clinic in Salem. The landlord is also having a big building in Salem Kugai Pulikutti Main Road. The said building is in occupation of the petitioner. He is keeping the building under lock and key. The petitioner is residing permanently along with his family in the city of Madras. His son who is a Doctor is also living along with him in Madras. Apart from that the petitioner is also having a shop at Trichy Main Road. The petitioner has filed the petition for eviction with regard to the said building. The' petition premises is not fit for constructing a hospital or a clinic. The petition premises is situate in an industrial area. Around the petition premises there are small scale industries and workshops. The petition premises is not required for the petitioner or for his family members. The petition premises is not an old one. It is not in a dilapidated condition as alleged. The petitioner has no means to put up the new construction. The petitioner has not issued any notice to the tenant. It was therefore pleaded that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises either under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) or under S. 14(1 )(b) of the Act.