KOLAPUR TRADERS BY PARTNER GANDHIBAI Vs. SUBRAMANIA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are tenants in respect of premises No. 48, Bogipattarai Street, Vellore and they are carrying on business in jaggery. They were let into possession by the father of the respondent. The property fell to the share of respondent. The respondent who is an Advocate practising at Vellore requires the premises for the purpose of locating his chambers. The revision petitioners are keeping the premises locked and also require a pagadi of Rs. 5000 and therefore the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the revision petitioners before the Rent Controller, Vellore.

(2.) THE application was resisted by the revision petitioners, who inter alia contended that the building is not suited for running the office of an Advocate and that the notice terminating the tenancy is not valid. The Rent Controller ordered eviction as, in his view, the requirement of the landlord of the premises was for the bona fide purpose of setting up his practice. In appeal, the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding and dismissed the appeal. The revision petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this revision.

(3.) IN Fraser & Ross v. : (1968)ILLJ682Mad a Bench of this Court extracted observations of the Supreme Court in National Union of Commercial Employees v. : (1962)ILLJ241SC . The observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the said ruling are: