K SANJEEVI KUMAR Vs. P SOMASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P. No.17 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Kovilpatti is the revision petitioner. Petition for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation and demolition and reconstruction was dismissed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 1.6.2005, which was reversed in judgment and decree dated 15.11.2005 in R.C.A.No.6 of 2005. The ground for eviction is for owner's occupation under Sec.10(3)(i) and for demolition and reconstruction under Sec.14(1)(b).

(2.) THE contention of the landlord (P.W.1) was that he is running his business as tenant in a building belonging to his father; that he has no other building for occupation and that he wants to do his business in the suit premises and therefore, he requires the same for his own occupation.

(3.) IT was also further held in A.L.O. Gopal Sah, Chennai and others v. K.P.M. Musthaffa and others A.L.O. Gopal Sah, Chennai and others v. K.P.M. Musthaffa and others A.L.O. Gopal Sah, Chennai and others v. K.P.M. Musthaffa and others (2004)2 MLJ.702, that the bona fides of the landlord contemplated under Sec.10(3)(e) of the Act need not have an acid test, creating unnecessary doubt then and there, compelling the landlord to answer each and every doubt raised by the tenant, in view of the inbuilt provisions in the Act, safeguarding the interest of the tenant, even after the eviction order is passed, provided, the conditions are not complied with.