(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, against the Judgment dated RCA.No.18 of 2003 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge at Pondicherry, confirming the order dated 26.6.2003 in HRCOP.No.15 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller (Sub-Judge) at Mahe. THIS revision has been directed against the Judgment in RCA.No.18 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pondicherry, which had arisen out of the order passed in RCOP.No.15 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller Magi. The unsuccessful respondent in the RCOP is the revision petitioner herein.
(2.) THE averment in the petition sans irrelevant particulars runs as follows:- THE petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property, which is situated in R.S.No,32 / 2 in Mahe Commune. After the purchase of the said property, the petitioner planned to constitute a partnership firm in the name and style of Aristo Shopping Complex in the petition scheduled building. But no such partnership was constituted. But the property stands in the name of the petitioner. THE petition scheduled property is a non-residential building, which was designed and constructed to use as a restaurant. THE respondent had taken the petition scheduled property on lease under the lease deed dated 20.05.1988 for constructing a restaurant with a stipulation to pay rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. THE rent was enhanced and fixed as Rs.3,630/- from Rs.3,000/- per month. THE respondent was conducting a restaurant in the plaint schedule property besides having three other shop buildings, which is adjacent to the petition scheduled building from the year 1991, and his constructing a Coolbar and Icecream Parlour in the said building. THE petitioner requires the petition scheduled building for the bonafide purpose of starting a restaurant for his daughter K.E.Ragina, who is depending on the petitioner and she is also a member of his family. THE said Ragina alongwith her husband is residing with the petitioner and the residence of the petitioner is very near to the schedule building. THE Tharavad House of the petitioner's wife is also very near to the schedule building. THErefore, the petitioner also could pay attention to the management of the restaurant conducted in the petition scheduled building. THE husband of the petitioner's daughter by name K.M. Vasser is an M.B.A., graduate and he is unemployed. THE petitioner's daughter is also unemployed. In fact the son in law of the petitioner is none other than the sister's son of the petitioner. THE petitioner intents and proposes to open a non-vegetarian restaurant in the petition schedule building and he has taken necessary steps in the said direction. THE petitioner is having the necessary financial resources to invest in the Hotel business. He has already applied to the Mahe Municipality for issue of Municipal licence to run the restaurant. THE petitioner's daughter K.E., Ragina is well versed in making non-vegetarian dishes and she will be managing the restaurant along with her husband. THE need of the petitioner is genuine and bonafide. Neither himself nor his daughter K.E.Ragina is in possession of any other non-residential building in Mahe commune which is sufficient to run a restaurant. THE petition scheduled building is situated on the side of Mahe River and it is visible both from Mahe side as well as from the New Mahe side which is in Kerala. THE geographical location of the schedule building is such that it will attract the customers while tavelling through the Managalore - Calicut National High Way Road. THE building has got all the convenience and facilities to run a restaurant. THE need of the petitioner is imminent and he bonafide requires the building for his daughter and her husband to do business to maintain their family. THE daughter of the petitioner is solely depending on him for her livelihood as her husband has no avocation. THEre are no building available in the locality to open the restaurant. Even though the respondent was requested time and again to vacate the building and handvoer vacant possession to the petitioner, he has been dragging on the matter under some pretext or the other. Hence, the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Pondichery Building (Lease & Rent control) Act, 1969, for eviction.
(3.) THE point for determination in this revision is whether the petitioner has complied with the requirements of the provisions under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Pondicherry Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 to get an order of eviction in his favour in respect of the petition scheduled property or the findings the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.18 of 2008 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of revision?