INDIRA Vs. VINAYAGAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the heirs of the Neelakantan who admittedly owned the premises in question situated at Pondicherry. THEy filed a petition for eviction of the respondent who is admittedly using the premises for business purposes.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they were staying with the father of Neelakantan as a joint family, but since after the death of Neelankantan in 1979, differences had arisen in the family, the petitioners left the family house and are now living in a rented house. Their claim, therefore, is that they are without any house of their own and they require the premises in question for their personal occupation.

(3.) THE main question which fell, therefore, for consideration before the Rent Controller was whether the petitioners could be denied the relief on the ground that the premises were non-residential. THE Rent Controller seemed to have inspected the premises and found that the house has got rooms, thalwaram, open space, bath room and kitchen and structurally the house was meant for residential purposes. It was also situated in a residential area. He, however, found that in the house the tenant had stored chillies. THE Rent Controller referred to S.21 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which created a bar against converting a residential building to a non-residential building except with the permission of the Controller. It may be mentioned that the provisions of the Pondicherry Act are identical to those of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 11960. Holding that the building was essentially and structurally a residential house capable of being used for residential house capable of being used for residential purpose, the Rent Controller found that there was no bar in law for ordering eviction in such a case. Accordingly, he allowed the petition of the petitioners.