LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-614

SAHUL HAMEED Vs. GANTHIMATHI

Decided On December 11, 2009
SAHUL HAMEED Appellant
V/S
GANTHIMATHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant. The Petition R.CO.P. No. 16 of 2003 was filed by the respondent landlady herein, for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation. The case of the landlady is that she is the absolute owner of non-residential building mentioned in the and the respondent is a tenant of the premises, paying a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and the respondent is doing business in the name of 'Raja Nainar Agencies' and 'Raja Nainar Stores'.

(2.) The landlady/respondent is running a business in Paints and Hardwares under the name of 'Karpaga Vinayakar Agencies' in a rented premises, bearing T.S. No. 851, North Main Street, Pudukkottai. As the respondent landlady wanted to do business in her own premises, she had issued notice, dated 16.5.2003, to the Tenant/revision petitioner to vacate the building and even after the receipt of the notice, the revision petitioner did not vacate the premises and had issued a reply notice, dated 18.6.2003, denying that the building is required bona fide by the landlady. Hence, the petition for eviction was filed by the respondent landlady.

(3.) The revision petitioner had filed a counter disputing the fact that the landlady is doing business in the rented premises under the name of 'Karpaga Vinayagar Agencies' and the landlady only wanted to vacate the tenant for the purpose of getting higher rent. He further contended that the claim of the landlady is not bona fide and the landlady for the; purpose of vacating the tenant, had created false and fabricated documents and therefore, there is no bona fide requirement for the respondent and hence, prayed that the Petition has to be dismissed.