Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 656 (MAD)

M. Annadurai v. Smt. C. Mangalam

2004-04-16

A.R.RAMALINGAM

body2004
ORDER: This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Thiruvarur in R.C.A.No.11 of 2000 dated 5.11.2001 whereby he has confirmed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thiruvarur in R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1997. 2. The landlady viz., one Mangalam filed R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1997 on the grounds of wilful default under Secs. 10(2)(i), requirement for owner’s occupation under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) and requirement for demolition and reconstruction under Sec. 14(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The premises bearing door N0.6D at Dharmakovil street at Thiruvarur belongs to the said landlady. It is a non-residential premises. The tenant viz., Annadurai is doing carpentry work with machineries and the agreed monthly rent is Rs.350 according to English calendar. The tenancy arrangement is oral. The tenant did not pay rent due from August 1995 wilfully. He is in arrears till June 1997 which comes to Rs.8,050. For some time, the tenant locked the premises and then filed a suit in O.S.No.106 of 1996 before the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam with the prayer that he should not be evicted except under due process of law by the landlady. The petition mentioned premises is in very bad condition and it has to be demolished and new construction should be put up with RCC and it is required for such purpose. Further, the landlady is doing business in sales of cool drinks and for that pur- pose also, the petition mentioned premises is required. The landlady is having sufficient means to put up new construction. She has also given an undertaking that she would demolish and reconstruct the building within the time allowed by the Rent Controller. In this respect, notice was also issued through counsel to the tenant to vacate the premises. But, the tenant replied with false allegations and thereby the tenant should be vacated. 3. The said R.C.O.P. seems to have been contested by the tenant with the allegations that the R.C.O.P. itself has been filed with the sole intention of evicting the tenant without valid and bona fide grounds. It is true that he petitioner in the R.C.O.P. is the landlady and the tenancy arrangement is oral and the agreed rent is Rs.350 per month. It is true that he petitioner in the R.C.O.P. is the landlady and the tenancy arrangement is oral and the agreed rent is Rs.350 per month. But, there is no wilful default in payment of rent from August, 1995 as alleged in the petition and it is equally false that the arrears or rent is to the tune of Rs.8,050 till June, 1997. In fact, the tenant had paid in advance of Rs. 14,000 to the landlady and as per Sec.7(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, one month’s rent alone can be received as advance and thereby, even after deducting one month’s rent as advance of Rs. 13,650 is with the landlady in excess and the rate payable by the tenant can be adjusted in that amount. In this respect, the tenant also issued notice dated 28.4.1997. However, without adjustment in the rents in the advance amount, the landlady filed the R.C.O.P. as if there is wilful default in payment of rent. In fact, the landlady and her sons highhandedly locked the petition mentioned premise, restrained the tenant from conducting his business from 10.6.1996 till 12.3.1997 and thereby they cannot claim rent for that period. Moreover, on 7.6.1996, the landlady and her sons attacked the tenant and caused injuries and in this respect, the tenant happened to take treatment as inpatient in Thiruvarur Government Hospital from 7.6.1996 to 13.6.1996 and further a police complaint also has been given in this respect and yet, the police has not filed charge sheet against the landlady and her sons. Moreover, the landlady and her sons locked the premises and thereby restrained the business of the tenant and lastly the tenant was able to get the lock opened by filing O.S.No. 106 of 1996 before the Sub Court, Nagapattinam through the advocate commissioner appointed by the Court in that respect and therefore, in such circumstances, the R.C.O.P. has been filed by the landlady with the ulterior motive of evicting the tenant from the premises somehow or other without any bona fide. 4. After having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on either side, the Rent Controller (District Munsif). Thiruvarur ordered for eviction of the tenant only on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction. 5. 4. After having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on either side, the Rent Controller (District Munsif). Thiruvarur ordered for eviction of the tenant only on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction. 5. Aggrieved against such order, the tenant preferred R.C.A before the Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Thiruvaur and the Appellate Authority also, after having considered the evidence available on either side, dismissed the R.C.A. by holding that requirement for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and consequently confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller. 6. Aggrieved against such concurrent finding of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, the civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant Annadurai on the grounds that both the authorities below have not properly appreciated the evidence and have failed to consider the material aspects and the mala fide intention of the landlady and the strained relationship between the landlord and the tenant and failed to consider the legal position to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 7. I have gone through the entire oral evidence and documents available on either side in the light of discussions, approach and reasoning of the authorities below and on such keen perusal. I am not able to see that there is error in appreciation of facts or in law in a way to invite this Court’s interference through this revision petition. In other words, I am of the view that the material factors that have to be taken into consideration in respect of bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction as indicated in the ruling reported in Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Animal, (1997)1 L. W. 218 have been taken into consideration by the authorities below and thereby the authorities below have come to the conclusion that the requirement for demolition and reconstruction is a bona fide one. 8. It is the evidence of PW1 to the effect that she requires the building which is a thatched one with mud walls for demolition and reconstruction with RCC roofing, etc.. and for that purpose, she obtained sanction and approved plan from the Thiruvarur Municipality as evident from Ex.P-5 series and she has also obtained extension of time for that purpose as evident from Ex.P-6. and for that purpose, she obtained sanction and approved plan from the Thiruvarur Municipality as evident from Ex.P-5 series and she has also obtained extension of time for that purpose as evident from Ex.P-6. So, the premises is a thatched shed with mud walls and it goes without saying that if a building with RCC roofing is put up, it would be more strong, useful and beneficial to the landlady. It is also an undisputed fact that the premises is a thatched shed with mud walls. So, in such circumstances, Exs.P-5 and P-6 cannot be construed as they were obtained with ulterior motive. 9. It is also the evidence of the landlady as P.W.1 that she is having sufficient means to demolish and put up new construction and in this respect, she has also produced her pass book marked as Ex.P-8 wherein she is having amount to the tune of Rs.47,000 besides other sources and that it is also the evidence of P.W.1 that one of her sons is doing prawns business and another son is a Director in cinema field and they are capable of furnishing funds to the landlady for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and she has also given an undertaking to demolish and put up new construction within the time allowed by the Rent Controller. Therefore, this aspect of the evidence of P.W.1 supported by Ex.P-8 cannot be easily ignored as if the landlady is trying to evict the tenant with ulterior motive without any means. 10. No doubt, the tenant has made an attempt by filing counter to show as if the site of the building belongs to some other temple and thereby the construction cannot be put up by the landlady as she is not the owner of the site. At the same time, the landlady has stated in the cross examination that permission has been given by the temple authorities to put up permanent building and that the temple authorities does not appear to have protested so far against the proposed new construction at the instance of the landlady and it is only the tenant who is saying as if permanent construction cannot be put up. It is not the concern of the tenant and it is a matter to be settled between the landlady and the temple authorities if at all there is any dispute between them that too when Annadurai is only a tenant recognising the petitioner Mangalam as his landlady and so, it is too much on his part to raise the questions as if the site belongs to the temple and the landlady cannot put up construction and so on. No doubt, the landlady has admitted in the cross examination that she has sold some of the adjacent properties to third parties, but, that does not mean that her requirement now through the R.C.O.P. for demolition and reconstruction is a mala fide one and it is always open for the owner of the premises to sell as the owner deems fit for ever so many reasons and it is not the concern of the tenant. No doubt, the tenant Annadurai filed the suit O.S.No. 106 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Nagapattinam against the landlady with the prayer that he should not be evicted except under due process of law and further the fact remains that he failed to pay the rents regularly and when it is questioned by issue of notice, he has chosen to explain as if rents can be adjusted in advance amount with the land- lady. At the same time, the explanation of the landlady is that the advance amount is returnable only when the tenant vacates the premises. However, the facts remain that the tenant did not pay rents regularly for some months as alleged in the R.C.O.P. Though it is spoken by the tenant in his evidence that he was attacked by the landlady and her sons and injuries were caused and in that respect, police complaint was given by him and yet, the police has not filed charge sheet, there is no documentary proof to show those things. 11. From all these aspects, one thing becomes blear that the tenant Annadurai, from the year 1994 is dodging to vacate the premises as demanded by the landlady in one way or other by taking his stand as if he himself wanted to purchase the petition mentioned premises and at the same time, the site belongs 10 some temple and so on. In such circumstances only, there is strained relationship between the landlady and the tenant. So, such strained relationship cannot be construed as if the landlady Mangalam has filed R.C.O.P. with ulterior motive of evicting the tenant Annadurai without any bona fide. On the other hand, in my view, the tenant Annadurai alone appears to be avoiding eviction in one way or other from the year 1994. Therefore, I do not see any oblique or ulterior motive on the part of the landlady to file this R.C.O.P. with the intention of evicting the tenant somehow or other. Instead, I am of the view that the tenant alone is going on taking some stand or other to his convenience with the intention of avoiding eviction somehow or other. Therefore, it is to be pointed out that there is bona fide requirement and there is sufficient means and the premises is in such a fit condition for demolition and reconstruction and there is sincere effort in getting the sanction and approved plan on the part of the landlady in a way to satisfy the guidelines indicated in the above said ruling of our Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. In such circumstances, I do not find acceptable and justifiable reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below and consequently, the civil revision petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Time for vacating the premises by the tenant is one month.