SAN SHI Vs. GOLDEN PLASTICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following are the allegations contained in the eviction petition filed by this petitioner under Section 10(3)(iii) of the TamilNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The petitioner is landlord of the premises bearing Old No. 4/7, New No. 4/2, Evening Bazaar Road, Chennai - 3. The respondent is tenant in respect of the said shop portion for a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month and only for three years from 1.7.1992 the property was rented out.

(2.) 2(a) The petitioner has three sons among whom one is handicapped. He has completed his BDS course. Due to want of place, he is unable to set up a dental clinic for his own. The petitioner requested the respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession but in vain. The petitioner bona fide requires the demised premises for her son's own use and occupation for setting up a clinic for her handicapped son. She does not own any property in the city in Chennai except the petition premises. She is suffering from untold hardship, since she could not provide a place for her handicapped son to set up a clinic. The demised premises is convenient for the petitioner to accommodate her son.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondent, the following are contained: The description of the respondent company is defective since ah the partners of the respondent company are not made parties. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. At the inception, the rent was Rs. 400/- per mont in 1981 but it was increased then and there and the present monthly rent is Rs. 2,000/-. It is false to state that the petition premises (sic) is required for setting up a dental clinic for petitioner's handicapped son who has completed his BDS course. The petitioner does not bona fide require petition premises since Shop No. 4/7 in the same building is occupied by her where she is running a dental clinic under the name and style Venfa Dental Clinic. Apart from that, Shop No. 4/1 & 4/B owned by the petitioner is under lock and key. Shop No. 4/E in the same premises owned by petitioner is let out for rental. The statutory requirements are not fulfilled and hence the petition may be dismissed.