Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1163 (MAD)

S. Selvarajan v. A. K. Sakthivel and another

1999-11-02

K.SAMPATH

body1999
Judgment : 1. The civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Srivilliputhur, in R.C.A.No.40 of 1991 on his file confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Sattur, in R.C.O.P.No.21 of 1990. 2. The revision petitioners eviction was sought on the ground of owners occupation. 3. The case as set out in the eviction petition was as follows: The revision petitioner and the second respondent herein were the tenants in respect of the property belonging to the first respondent for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.300. The tenants agreed to vacate the premises and the tenancy got over in 1985. The first respondent/landlord required the building for his own use for the purpose of locating his business. He had been conducting the business under the name and style of Sakthirani Traders in Door No.112, ICA Colony, Virudhunagar. It was a rented premises belonging to one Tmt.Mythili and the landlady having called upon the first respondent to vacate the premises, the eviction petition had to be filed. 4. The second respondent remained ex parte and the revision petitioner along contested the case on the following lines: The tenancy commenced even prior to the purchase of the property by the first respondent in 1978. The tenant never agreed to vacate the premises in 1985. The first respondent was not running his own business in a rented premises as claimed by him nor did the landlady require the first respondent to vacate the premises. The requirement was not bona fide. 5. The first respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-33. The revision petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 and examined one Janarthanam as R.W.2 and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 28. 1991 found that the first respondent landlord had made out a case for eviction on the ground of owners occupation and ordered eviction. This order of eviction was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 12. 1996. As against the order of the Appellate Authority the present civil revision petition has been filed. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the authorities below have not properly appreciated the various documents and the oral evidence. This order of eviction was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 12. 1996. As against the order of the Appellate Authority the present civil revision petition has been filed. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the authorities below have not properly appreciated the various documents and the oral evidence. The requirement of the first respondent is not bonafide and that the claim that he is running his business in a rented premises is only a make-believe affair and the documents have been created for the purpose of this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent claiming as he did, was doing business in blackgram, coriander, orid, green gram, PVC pipes and accessories, paddy, rice, etc., did not produce any licence under the Essential Commodities Act, nor did he produce any State Control Orders. According to the learned counsel, the very documents relied on by the first respondent landlord would show that he had no intention of doing any business in the petition mentioned property. The learned counsel also relied on the oral evidence of the first respondent as P.W.1 and also the oral evidence of R.W.2 who is the Commercial Tax Officer. The learned counsel further submitted that in the notice issued on behalf of the first respondent, it was not mentioned that the first respondent required the premises for carrying on his own business. The notice actually stated that the premises were required for the business purpose of the first respondents son who was studying Chartered Accountancy. 7. I heard counsel, perused the relevant orders. There is overwhelming documentary evidence to show that the first respondent really intended to carry on business in the property. As early as 12. 1989 the first respondent wrote a letter to the revision petitioner under Ex.A-2 calling upon him to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property as it was required for his own use and occupation. Ex.A-5 is the receipt issued by the Telephone Department in favour of the first respondent and Ex.A-6 is the demand notice issued by the same department. Ex.A-11 is the true copy of the telegram given by the first respondent to the revision petitioner to vacate the premises on 18. 1989. This was followed by a lawyer notice under Ex.A-12. Ex.A-21 is the certificate of registration under the Sales Tax Rules, 1957. Ex.A-11 is the true copy of the telegram given by the first respondent to the revision petitioner to vacate the premises on 18. 1989. This was followed by a lawyer notice under Ex.A-12. Ex.A-21 is the certificate of registration under the Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The premises mentioned in Ex.A-21 is 112, ICA Colony, Virudhunagar, belonging to one Mythili. It is also stated in Ex.A-21 that the first respondent is dealing in black gram, coriander, toor, orid, green gram, palmyrah sandy, PVC pipes and accessories, GI pipes and fittings, paddy, rice, etc. Ex.A-26 is the summons received from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer-II, Virudhunagar, addressed to the first respondent at 112, ICA Colony, Virudhunagar. Ex.A-27 is the assessment order in respect of Sakthi Rani Traders belonging to the first respondent for the year 1989-90 and the address given is 112, ICA Colony, Virudhunagar. The landlady has written a letter to the first respondent on 3. 1990 calling upon him to vacate the premises as he was using the residential premises for non-residential purposes. This was Ex.A-31 and Ex.A-32 to the reply sent by the first respondent, Ex.A-24, is the cash book maintained by the first respondent for the business, viz. Sakthi Rani Traders, Ex.A-25 is the ledger maintained by the concern. Ex.A-28 is the cash book for the year 1990-91. Ex.A-29 is the ledger pertaining to Ex.A- 28. These exhibits clearly show that the first respondent was carrying on business in a rented premises. It is also evident from the various documents that he was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act and the State Commercial Tax Act. The revision petitioner also had not denied that the first respondent was carrying on business in a residential property and the landlady had taken the rise of action under the Rent Control Act for having allowed the first respondent to run his business in residential premises. R.W.2 had also deposed that the department officials inspected the premises maintained by the first respondent at No. 112, ICA Colony, Virudhunagar. Thus the various documents and the oral evidence clearly established that the first respondent was carrying on business in a rented premises at Door No. 112, ICA Colony Virudhunagar. The bonafide of the first respondent as rightly held by the authorities below had been clearly established. Thus the various documents and the oral evidence clearly established that the first respondent was carrying on business in a rented premises at Door No. 112, ICA Colony Virudhunagar. The bonafide of the first respondent as rightly held by the authorities below had been clearly established. May be the first respondent originally said through notice that he required the premises for the use of his son. But, it does not mean that he could not change his requirement as for his own occupation for non-residential purposes. The materials on record clearly show that the first respondent had made out a case for own occupation. The conclusion reached by the authorities below cannot be taken exception to. There are no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 8. Mr. Damodaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to grant six months time, subject to the revision petitioner filling an affidavit of undertaking. Accordingly, subject to the revision petitioner filing an affidavit of undertaking with the usual default clause within a period of two weeks from today, the revision petitioner will have time till 35. 2000 to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property to the landlord.