K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.M.JAMES
Chandran – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar – Respondent
Radhakrishnan, J.
Can a rent control petition filed under Sec. 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 be rejected placing reliance on certain subsequent events brought out in the cross-examination without amendment of the pleadings by the tenant is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.
2. Rent Control petition was filed on 17-6-1996 under Sec. 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 contending that the tenanted premises is bonafide required by the landlord’s son. Landlord’s son has completed a technical course from the Thyagaraja Poly Technic and he intends to start a refrigeration service and repairing unit in the petition schedule premises. Landlord is financially sound to purchase the machinery and tools to start the refrigeration service and repairing unit for his son. Son is unemployed, but has the requisite qualification and experience to start the refrigeration service and repairing unit.
3. Tenant contended that the attempt of the landlord is only a ruse to evict him. Further it was pointed out by the tenant that he is conducting a medical shop and that the need of the son is not genuine. Further landlord has got other buildings for conducting the business of his son. Tenan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.