B VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. K RAMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the Rent Control appellate Authority, Salem made in RCA. No. 11 of 2004 affirming the order of the rent Controller, Salem in RCOP. No. 62 of 2002.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. The Court is of the considered opinion that the Civil Revision Petition does not require admission at the hands of the Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the materials available on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the authorities below in evicting the petitioner has got to be sustained since the revision petitioner does not carry any business whatsoever. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent landlord by making a payment of sum of Rs. 500/- per month towards rent. Both the authorities below have concurred with the points that the revision petitioner/tenant though claimed to be carried on business of ghee and butter for one year, there was no material to accept the same. Hence, the contentions put forth by the landlord that tenant is not carrying on his business, but keeping the premises under a lock has to be accepted. There is no material to show that the landlord was having another property to carry on his business. Further it is also an admitted position that the landlord was carrying on his business somewhere. Under the circumstances, the authorities below found that the respondent landlord required the premises in question for his own use and occupation was a bona fide one. As such, the eviction ordered by the authorities below has got to be sustained.