S MARIAPPAN Vs. KADAR BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1992, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif's Court, Tuticorin) is the revision petitioner.

(2.) RESPONDENT herein filed the eviction petition against the petitioner seeking surrender of the schedule premises on the ground that the same is required for her son's bona fide own occupation. It is her case that her son has no building of his own and he is doing business in electrical goods in a rented premises. The schedule building is suitable for the same. Various demands were made to the petitioner asking him to surrender the building, which he did not comply with. Hence the eviction petition was filed.

(3.) RENT Controller, as per Order dated 29-7-1992, held that the claim of the landlady is genuine, and the revision petitioner is liable to surrender the building. RENT Controller took into consideration both oral and documentary evidence for entering such a finding. Before the RENT Controller, Exx. A-1 to A-6 were marked on the side of the landlady, and landlady's husband was examined as P.W. 1. Respondent (tenant) examined himself as R.W. 1. No documentary evidence was adduced by him. RENT Controller further found that the landlady's son was doing business of his own in electrical goods, and the business was carried on in a rented premises. He also found that the landlady's son has no building of his own, and, therefore, the claim is bona fide. Aggrieved by the Order of the RENT Controller, the matter was taken in appeal before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A. No. 64 of 1992. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the findings of the RENT Controller.