A SUBRAMANI Vs. S GNANASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following are the allegations in brief contained in the petition filed by the petitioner/landlord (respondent herein) before the Rent Controller under Section 10 (2)(i) and Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960:-

(2.) IN the counter filed by the respondent/tenant (Petitioner herein), the following are stated:-2. (a) The respondent has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance. There is a written agreement. It is false to state that he is wilful defaulter and he is in arrears from January 2002. the petitioner is not in the habit of passing of receipts. After receiving the advance from this respondent, suddenly the petitioner began a business in S.T.D and xerox. He has fixed up name boards and sign boards obstructing the access to the shop occupied by the respondent. Further the view of the respondent's shop was closed almost completely. Hence, the respondent requested the petitioner to remove the name boards and not to obstruct the access to his shop. He also requested the petitioner to issue receipts for the rents received by him for which the petitioner became hostile towards him and began to harass him. 2. (b) There was no wilful default on the part of the respondent. The requirement of the petitioner on the ground of additional accommodation is not true and not bona fide at all. It is solely made for the purpose of evicting the respondent from the place to grab huge advance paid by him and to let out the same to others for enhanced rent and advance. The petitioner has vacated the prior tenant also within a short period. If he vacates the premises, the respondent will put into heavy loss. He has invested heavily in the business. He will be completely ruined if he is asked to vacate the premises. The petition is not at all bona fide, vexatious and devoid of merits. Hence the same has to be dismissed.

(3.) CONVERSELY, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the evicting or vacating the earlier tenant by this respondent has got no bearing in the present matter, that the Commissioner's Report and his evidence before the rent controller would clearly show that the landlord is doing his business in a very small place and that the hardships which would be experienced by the landlord would be more when the hardships of the tenant are considered.