PITCHAIPILLAI Vs. DOMINIQUE MARIE IGNACE PROSPER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT was asked to surrender vacant possession of the building by the Authorities below, and he has come before this Court challenging the correctness of the same.

(2.) LANDLORD sought eviction on the ground that he has to keep his motor vehicles in the Schedule premises, and that he has no other building of his own in his possession. The petition was filed under Section 10 (3 ) (a) (ii) of the Pondicherry Rent Control Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions ; the applicability of which I will consider later V. Balakrishna Menon v. MA. K. Govindan , 1979 (92) LW 56, Lakshmanan v. Hajee Alavudeen Saheb Sons, 1980 (I) MLJ 9; L. R. Padmavathi Ammal v. E. R Manickam , 1981 (94) LW 206. On the basis of these decisions, an argument was advanced that since the building is not suitable, or from its inherent nature, it is non- residential, eviction for own use cannot be allowed. The argument was further elaborated by saying that if the eviction is in respect of a non-residential building, the subsequent user or the requirement of the landlord must also be non-residential purpose. The requirement to keep a vehicle is neither residential nor non-residential and, therefore, the application under Section 10 ( 3 ) (a) (ii) of the Rent Control Act is misconceived.