S SOMAIAH Vs. S P VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON ORDER: The tenants are the petitioners in the above civil revision petitions. The entire premises, which consist of ground floor and first floor, belonged to the joint family of the respondent and his father S.G. Purushothaman. In the ground floor portion there are about eight shops. The first floor portion was occupied by T.V.S. Workers Recreation Club. The entire building is a non-residential one. The petitioner S.Somaiah became a tenant in respect of the shop bearing Old No. 178/5 and new Door No.280, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry. The petitioner B.Vikraman became a tenant in respect of two shops in the ground floor bearing old Door Nos. 178/3 and 178/4 and new Door No.278, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry. They became tenants under the father of the respondent.

(2.) ACCORDING to the tenant B.Vikraman, he paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000 and was paying a monthly rent of Rs.1,900. He occupied the shops and was carrying on Readymade Garments business under the name and style of New Mangaldeep. He is now paying a monthly rent of Rs.3,677. The father of the respondent filed an application for eviction of both the tenants under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 1982. Though he succeeded before the Rent Controller, he lost before the Appellate Authority and this Court. His application for eviction against the tenants was ultimately dismissed.

(3.) BOTH the tenants contested the applications contending that the alleged requirement of the respondent for his own occupation is not bona fide, that at present he is carrying on his legal profession in the ancestral house at No.54, Vysial Street, Pondicherry, that he is also residing therein along with his parents, that there is no need nor any necessity for the respondent to shift his place of profession to the petition premises, which is situate in a commercial locality and is most unsuitable for carrying on his profession as an advocate. The tenants further contended that on the assurance given by the respondent's father at the time of the commencement of the tenancy that the tenant B.Vikraman will not be disrubed, he spent large sum of Rs.5,00,000 for decorating the shop and is at present stocking goods worth Rs. 15,00,000. He also contended that if he is evicted, he will be put to undue hardship and that the hardship that will be caused to the tenant would far out-weigh the advantage that will accrue to the respondent.