P M S PAKKIR MOHIDEEN Vs. K SUSILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT is the revision petitioner. Aggrieved over the order of eviction passed on 07. 12. 2001 in R. C. A. No. 246 of 1998 on the file of VIII judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, which reversed the dismissal order dated 29. 01. 1998 of R. C. O. P. No. 1825 of 1995 that was filed for eviction under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the file of XI Judge, Small Causes court, Chennai, this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) THE tenament is measuring 7 feet x 19 feet in the ground floor of premises No. 442, Mint Street, Chennai-79, which was let out for non-residential purpose to the revision petitioner / tenant.

(3.) IN one portion of the same building, the respondent/ landlady is having residence. She wanted the tenaments for owner's occupation inasmuch as she wanted to shift the goldsmith business of his sons Damodaran and Ganesan from the rented shop at No. 67, Edapalayam Street, Madras. There was also a goldsmith licence issued by the competent authority in favour of the two sons of the respondent/ landlady. It was found that the landlady does not own any other premises except the petition mentioned one. There is also no need for any threat of eviction to the sons of landlady from their rented premises at edapalayam Street, Madras. Even without the threat, a landlady can bona fide apply for owner's occupation. It is not also as if the tenant can dictate to the landlady to select a particular portion. On the other hand, the landlady can choose the portion, for which she wants eviction.