P.S.Janakavalli Ammal vs The Regional Manager on 29 June, 2004
19. On the contrary, the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 is categorical
to the effect that P.W.1 does not own any non-residential building in the said
town and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
decision MASILAMANI v. V.BALIAH (1989-1-L.W. 123) to fortify his contention
that the burden of proving that the person on whose behalf the landlady
requires the non-residential building does not own any such building in the
same town lies on the tenant and that the landlord cannot be expected to prove
a negative aspect. On a careful perusal of the evidence of the case in the
light of the ratio laid down in the said decision, this Court is inclined to
accept the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner in this respect
and hold that it is not proved by the tenant herein that P.W.1 owns any other
non-residential building in the said town.