M ABU TAHIR Vs. M RAHAMATHULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE revision petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the property described in R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, as well as contending that he is the landlord, has filed a petition for eviction of the tenant, on the ground that the tenant/respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rent that the demised premises is required for him to carry on business, which he is already owning and that the building, which is in dilapidated condition, is required fo r immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction, invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called "the Act" under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(iii) and 14(i)(b) of the Act.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller, scanning the above evidence and assessing the materials placed before him, including the Commissioner's report, came to the conclusion that there was no default of rent, much less wilful default in payment of rent, that the landlord, who is carrying on business, not owning any other building, and therefore the building is required for him for personal occupation, and that demand or requirement of the landlord, that the building is required for immediate purpose of demolitio n and reconstruction is bona fide . Though one ground was negatived, on two grounds, eviction was ordered, on 21.2.2001, which was challenged by the tenant, before the appellate authority in R.C.A. No.2 of 2001.