V KATHIRESAN Vs. LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in in R.C.A.No.10 of 2013, dated 14.02.2014, by Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Court), Pudukottai, confirming the order dated 17.07.2013 passed in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2010 by Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Pudukottai.

(2.) The tenant is the revision petitioner in this petition. The respondent herein, who is the landlord, has filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2010 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Pudukottai for eviction. It is not in dispute that the demised property was let out for non-residential purpose and the petitioner was using the premises for running a paint manufacturing unit. Though the lease was for doing business and the lease was for non-residential purpose, the respondent has sought for eviction on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation by the respondent / landlord, stating that the premises is required for his residential purpose.

(3.) The revision petitioner filed a counter stating that there is no default, as the revision petitioner is paying the rent regularly. With regard to the owner's occupation, it is the specific case of the revision petitioner that the petition is not maintainable, as the premises was let out to the revision petitioner for non-residential purpose and that the eviction on the ground of owner's occupation for using the same for the residential use of landlord, is not maintainable. Ultimately, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2010, specifically holding that the landlord has not proved that the tenant has committed default in rent. The Rent Controller also found that the petition for eviction on the ground that the demised premises, which was let out to the tenant for non-residential purpose, is not maintainable, if it is required for residential purpose. Hence, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition, rejecting the contention of the landlord on both grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord has preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.10 of 2010 before the Rent Controller Appellate Authority / Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai.