KULANDAISWAMY Vs. S SANTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE landlord filed petition under Secs.10(2)(ii)(a) and (b) and 10(2)(iii) and 14(i)(b) of the Rent Control Act contending as follows: THE petitioner has purchased the petition mentioned property by a registered sale deed dated 21.2.1990. THE first respondent had occupied the petition mentioned thatched house as tenant under petitioner's vendor Subbiah Mudaliar for non-residential purpose and he was running a vegetable stall. He is liable to be evicted. THE first respondent made a partition of the business by putting up a masonry partition wall and sub-leased the eastern half to the second respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.300 and is retaining the western half and using it for vending vegetables. After receipt of the petitioner's lawyer's notice, the first respondent removed the partition wall overnight and even after removal of the partition wall, the second respondent is continuing as sub-tenant under the first respondent. THE further allegation of the petitioner is that the construction of the partition wall was later demolished and the projection of the thatched slopping roof on the west of the premises are substantial alterations of the demised premises materially affecting the value or utility of the building and on this ground also, the respondents is liable to be evicted. THE building is very old and it requires demolition and reconstruction. THE petitioner has got sufficient means to put up a new construction and on this ground also, the respondents are liable to be evicted. So, the petitioner asked for eviction on the ground of sub-letting and demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) POINT for consideration is whether the first respondent had sub-let the premises and whether the requirement of the landlord/revision petitioner on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is bona fide.