CHACKOI Vs. YEDITHA SESHAMAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Mrs. Chacko runs a nursing home at Kakinada in the premises belonging to the respondent. The latter applied for the eviction of Mr. and Mrs. Chacko citing them as respondents 1 and 2 to her petition. The case of the landlady is that she let out the premises to the husband for use as residence but contrary to the understanding, he allowed the wife to have a nursing home within the premises. The applicant for eviction also urged that she requires the use of her building for her own occupation as she is now obliged to reside as tenant in a house which is not her own. There are also other grounds urged to maintain the prayer for eviction but they are not material for the decision of this case.

(2.) The respondents filed separate answers to the landlady's pleading. The husband denied that he is the tenant. His plea is that it is the wife that entered into the agreement of tenancy. He was making payments towards rent but it was only on behalf of his wife. The main contest was raised by the latter who claimed that she was the tenant and that the premises were let out and used for a non- residential purpose from the outset, She denied that the building had ever been put to residential user. She called in question the landlady's plea that the building was needed bonafide for personal occupation.

(3.) The controller, who decided the application, negatived the the landlady's prayer for eviction and held that the tenancy argreement was entered into with the wife and not the husband, There were also findings that the premises were let out for a nursing home and hospital and that the request for personl occupation was unjustified. On an appeal by the landlady, the appellate authority came to a different conclusion on both aspects. The subordinate Judge, Kakinada, held on appeal that Mr, Chacko was the tenant and not his wife and that the building was used for a non-residential purpose contrary to the tenancy agreement and without obtaining the permission of the landlady. The plea of requirement for personal occupation also prevailed with the appellate court.