N ANDAL Vs. M SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORDS in R.C.O.P.No.442 of 1987, on the file of Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Madurai, are the revision petitioners.

(2.) FIFTH petitioner is the father of petitioners 2 to 4. First petitioner is the step-mother of petitioners 2 to 4. Subject-matter of the eviction proceedings is in the possession of respondents who are man and wife. They are doing business in textiles therein under the name and style of ?ABC Stores?, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.575.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by order, tenants filed R.C.A.No.43 of 1996. The Appellate Authority, on a re-assessment, held that the claim is not bona fide. The Appellate Authority further came to the conclusion that even if the claim is bona fide, when relative hardship is assessed, the tenants will be put to greater hardship. The Appellate Authority was also of the view that the landlord's business can be had even outside the City and that the same need not be confined to the schedule building. It further held that to avoid heat from the sun and also from the heat emanating form the machine, landlord can provide other means of protection, and for that purpose, the tenants need not be evicted. The eviction petition was dismissed by allowing the appeal. The said judgment of the Appellate Authority is challenged in this revision under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act.