BHAVANI MADHURAKAVI Vs. V CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R. C. O. P. No. 44 of 1989 on the file of the Rent controller, Karaika is the revision petitioner.

(2.) ORIGINALLY, the landlady filed the said R. C. O. P. and when the matter was pending before the appellate authority, she died. Her legal representatives are the respondents herein. The R. C. O. P. was filed by the landlady for eviction of the residential building under Sec. l0 (3) (A)I of the pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969. It is averred by the landlady in the eviction petition that the agreed rent was Rs. 350 per month. She further said that she was residing with her son Chandrasekaran in a rented building and the landlord of that building demanded vacant possession. Therefore, the landlady sought for vacant possession of the schedule building.

(3.) AS against the said contention, the counsel for the respondent contended that the primary test to consider whether the building is a residential or a nonresidential is the nature of construction. He further contended that even if some minor changes are to be effected and if it could be made use of a residential building, it will be a residential accommodation for the purpose of the Act. Which of the contentions is to be accepted is the only question in this revision.