DEVAKIRUBAI Vs. PACKIYARAJ(DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The demised premises was purchased by one Jebamani Nadar in the year 1967. It was let out to the revision petitioner on oral tenancy during the life time of Jebamani Nadar to run printing press under the name and style of ''Dason Press''. In the year 1989, Jebamani Nadar died. His son Packiyaraj inherited the property and became the absolute owner of the property, since his mother and sisters relinquished their right in the property to and in favour of Packiyaraj.

(2.) While so, the landlord sought for vacant possession of the demised building by December 2003. While the tenant/revision petitioner initially agreed, but did not vacate the premises and hand over the possession. Four sons of the landlord are uneducated and in need of the premises to run business. Hence, RCOP.No.4/2004 was filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide request of the landlord to start business in the demised building. The said petition was contested by the tenant/revision petitioner.

(3.) The claim of bona fide requirement was denied. Questioning the bona fide of the landlord, the tenant contended that the landlord have 6 to 7 shops apart from the demised premises in the same Town. Further, the landlord has not proved his preparation to establish any business in the demised premises. Admittedly, the landlord have no wherewithal or capital to start a business. Above all, admittedly, he is not even certain about the business he intends to start. Therefore, the demand to vacate is not borne out of bona fide intention.