JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Revision petitioner's petition seeking
eviction of the respondent from a non-
residential premises at Kavali was allowed
by the Rent Controller but was dismissed by
the appellate authority in the appeal preferred
by the respondent. Hence this revision by
the landlord.
(2.)The admitted facts are, including the
premises let out to respondent, petitioner is
the owner of four non-residential premises.
All of them are in the occupation of tenants.
Revision petitioner sought eviction of the
respondent on the ground that he requires it
for his business he intends to carry on in
fancy goods and stainless steelware.
(3.)The case of the respondent is that the
requirement, of the revision petitioner, of the
building in his occupation is not bona fide and
is only intended to seek enhancement in the
rent.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.