THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. VASANTHA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petition is filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 14 of 1989, on the file of Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai.

(2.) THE main ground on which eviction is sought by the landlady is that her son requires the schedule building for his occupation. It is her case that her son who has studied M.B.B.S. is in dire need of non-residential building for running a clinic, and either she or her son does not own any other non-residential building, for the said purpose. It is said that various demands were made to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises, and at last a notice was issued on 27.2.1989, for which a reply was sent on 17.3.1989, refusing to hand over possession, and at the same, time, taking untenable contentions. On the above grounds, eviction petition was filed by the landlady.

(3.) THE Rent Controller after examining the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlady is bona fide . He further found that the son has no other building of his own, and that at the time when the landlady was adducing evidence, the son had to complete six months' education, for finishing M.B.B.S. course, and that will not stand in the way of the landlady getting possession of the building. Rent Controller further held that the completion of M.B.B.S. course itself is a step to "carry on business" and, therefore, there is no disqualification on the part of the landlady to get possession of a non-residential premises. THE claim was also found to be bona fide.