R SOMANATHAN Vs. R RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, who suffered an eviction order, concurrently, in the hands of the courts below, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent/landlord has filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Nagercoil in RCOP No.79 of 1992, seeking an order of eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner, from the demised premises on the grounds; that the building is required for his personal occupation for the purpose of carrying on his individual business, which he is carrying on, since he is not owning any other building of his own in the town and that the tenant had wantonly committed willful default in payment of rents for the months October, November and December, 1988, further alleging that the partnership business between himself and his family members is entirely a different business.

(3.) AS far as the other ground is concerned, the learned Appellate Authority appears to have come to the conclusion that the landlord, being a member of the joint family, involved in a joint business or partnership business and at present, he wants to come out from the same, thereby to carry on a business of his own, for which the demised premises is required for his personal occupation. Probably, taking this kind of view, based upon certain judicial precedents, as seen from the end of the judgment, an observation is made ...[VERNACULAR TEX OMITTED]... AS said above, the Rent Controller has taken a view that the landlord is carrying on his own business at Door No.54-A, which appears to be not confirmed or not even discussed. Viewing the case from different angle, but concurring with the result of the rent controller, the eviction order was confirmed for personal occupation, namely under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, as per judgment, dated 13.02.2003, which is under challenge in this revision.