ALAGARSAMY Vs. S N RAMANOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT who was directed to vacate the premises by the Appellate Authority, has come to this Court, challenging the decision. Respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 38 of 1986, on the file of Rent Controller, Dindigul.

(2.) IN his Eviction Petition, respondent alleged that he is living in the upstair portion of his house with his family and children. His eldest son is a licensed stamp vendor, and his wife is also doing business in the upstairs portion, selling betel-nut leaves. The younger son is studying in school and the daughter is undergoing Teacher's Training. It is alleged that the petitioner/landlord's wife and son who are doing business in the upstairs portion find it very difficult to carry on their business, and there is no sufficient space for all the members of the family to live together. Children are also growing. The accommodation is insufficient. Hence the landlord filed the Eviction Petition.

(3.) IN the counter statement, the revision petitioner/tenant alleged that the claim for additional accommodation can be had only for the landlord and not for the members of the family, and it is something personal to him. It is further contended that an additional accommodation cannot be claimed for the purpose of business as well as residence, for, the landlord himself is not sure as to for what purpose the accommodation is required. He further said that the present accommodation of the landlord is more than sufficient for his requirement, and the claim is not bona fide. He further contended that if he is asked to vacate, he will be put to very great hardship.