K M IYYAKANNU Vs. THANGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India against the order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned property and note the physical features.

(2.) IT is seen that the respondent herein filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner that the petition mentioned premises is required for accommodating his vehicle, namely, a tourist van bearing registration number TNP. 4066. The said application resisted by the revision petitioner contending that he is using the said premises for tailoring shop and no van can enter the premises as it is unless it is altered. He also contended that there is no sufficient space for parking the vehicle. The Court below dismissed the petition relying on a judgment of this court reported in Mrs. Thangam v. P. K. Madhavan, (1986)1 M. L. J. 291 wherein it was held as follows: ". . . the shed in the occupation of the respondent need not be actually used as a garage at the time the petition is filed. IT may either be used as a garage or alternatively it may be of such structural design that it can be used as a garage with certain adaptations. IT is not the case of the respondent that the shed occupied by him cannot be used as a garage with certain adaptations. If the wooden partition etc. , put up by him ar e removed, the shed can certainly be used as a garage. The appellate Authority was, therefore, wrong in holding that the petitioner must prove that the shed is being used as a garage in presenti and further more the subclause does not extend to a building, which cannot be used without suitable adaptations being made. " IT is only against the said order of the Court below that the present petition is filed.