THOOKU PARAMBATH RAVINDRAN Vs. KANDOTH POYIL PRADEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dtd. 14/7/2014 made in R.C.A No. 5 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, (II Additional District Court), Puducherry, confirming the order of eviction dtd. 11/9/2013 made in H.R.C.O.P No. 2 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Controller, (Sub-Court), Mahe.

(2.) The respondent/landlord has filed H.R.C.O.P No. 2 of 2012 for eviction on the ground of personal occupation. The demise building is required for his personal occupation stating that he has returned from Gulf after he lost his job and hence, he wants to start a stationary business in the demise building. He is also having experience in that business, as he was working as a sales man in that field in Gulf and he can arrange sufficient funds to start the proposed stationary in the petition schedule building.

(3.) The petitioner/tenant has raised a defence stating that the respondent/landlord is having permanent job and he is getting a descent income from his job as a sales man and from his lottery agency. So there is no necessity for him to start a business in the petition schedule building. Further, the petitioner/tenant is conducting an agency business of "Oushadhi" Ayurvedic medicines business in the petition schedule building. The tenant is having a branch of this agency at Irattpilakool. If the petition schedule building is to be vacated, the petitioner/tenant will lose the agency and his branch will have also to be closed. In the month of January 2011, when the tenant offered the rent, the landlord refused to receive the same and demanded higher rate of rent. The admitted rent is Rs.2,000.00. Therefore, the tenant was constrained to file a petition in H.R.C.O.P No. 5 of 2011 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rent in the Court. That petition was allowed. The landlord to consummate the same, has filed H.R.C.O.P No. 2 of 2012 for eviction.