Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 739 (MAD)

S. Loganathan v. V. Thirumoorthy

2004-05-12

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2004
Judgment : 1. The landlord is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Rent Control Appeal preferred by tenant, which was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside the eviction of the tenant from the petition premises ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of own use and occupation and additional accommodation. 2. The landlord as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant on the grounds that the petition shop was used for different purpose other than for which it was let out, that the tenant has caused nuisance and also on the ground that the petition premises consisting of shop and godown is required for the purpose of carrying on business by the landlord and also on the ground that the petition premises is required for additional accommodation. To the notice caused on 21.6.1999, no reply was sent by the respondent/tenant. On these grounds, the petitioner/landlord sought for eviction of the respondent/tenant from the petition premises. 3. The respondent as tenant filed counter wherein the tenancy and quantum of rent of Rs.1100 per month is admitted. It is further stated in the counter that the petition premises comprises of two portions bearing Door Nos. 605 and 606 situate at N.H. Road, Coimbatore. The portion bearing Door No. 605 is on the southern side and it was let out to tenant in the year 1974 for the purpose of doing metal business. The northern portion bearing Door No. 606 has been let out to the other person, who is carrying on steel business in the name and style of Meena Steels. It is stated that the respondent/tenant is doing metal business in the name and style of Murugan Metal Mart. It is denied that the petition premises was used for different purpose other than for which it was let out. It is also denied that the respondent is melting copper and allied materials, which emit toxic smell. It is also stated that no melting work is carried on inside the shop. It is further stated that the petitioner is employed in construction work under somebody and he does not carry on any business. In the Rent Control Original Petition, it is not stated as to what is the nature of business the petitioner intends to carry on in the petition premises. It is further stated that the petitioner is employed in construction work under somebody and he does not carry on any business. In the Rent Control Original Petition, it is not stated as to what is the nature of business the petitioner intends to carry on in the petition premises. It is denied that the petition premises is required for additional accommodation. It is further stated that the petitioner is owning a building in the same locality. If the respondent is directed to vacate the petition premises, much hardship will be caused which will outweigh the advantage to the petitioner/landlord. On these grounds, the respondent/tenant sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and to rebut the evidence, the Respondent/tenant examined himself as R.W.1. Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked on the side of the petitioner while Ex. B.1 was marked on the side of the respondent. The Rent Controller, though denied eviction on the ground that the petition premises was used for different purpose other than for which it was let out and also on the ground of nuisance, however, ordered eviction both on the grounds of own use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on business by the petitioner and also on the ground of additional accommodation. In the appeal preferred by the tenant in respect of the eviction ordered on the said grounds, the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved at the said judgment, the landlord as revision petitioner has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord and the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has filed memo stating that though the Rent Control Original Petition was filed for eviction under Sections 10(3)(a)(ii) and 10(3)(c), the petitioner is confirming his case only with regard to the ground of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and accordingly, advanced arguments. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord submitted that inasmuch as the landlord is residing in first floor of the petition premises, which is situated in the ground floor, eviction sought on the ground of additional accommodation is not pressed. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord submitted that inasmuch as the landlord is residing in first floor of the petition premises, which is situated in the ground floor, eviction sought on the ground of additional accommodation is not pressed. 7. The petition premises is the shop bearing old Door No. 396 and the new Door No. 605 consisting of shop area 9’ X 16’ godown area 10’ X 15’ and the stair case room area is 2.9’ X 9’. The landlord, as P.W.1, in his evidence has stated that he required the petition premises only for own use and occupation and not on the ground of additional accommodation. In the notice Ex.A.5 dated 21.6.1999 sent by the revision petitioner/landlord through his Advocate, it is stated that his mother and sisters are living with them and he has to carry on business in the petition premises since he is unable to meet the family expenses. The business which he intends to carry on is not specified in the said notice. The respondent sent reply under Ex.A.7 dated 14.7.1999 disputing the requirement of the petition premises by the landlord and stating that the landlord is not carrying on any business and he has no intention to carry on any business and the landlord is employed in construction work under somebody. In the reply notice sent, it is also stated that the landlord also owns a separate building in the same locality. Despite such reply, in the Rent Control Original Petition, it is not clearly set out as to what is the business the landlord intends to carry on in the petition premises. The Rent Control Original Petition was filed on 12.7.1999. Though in the counter also it is denied by the respondent that the requirement of the petition premises for own use and occupation by the landlord to carry on business, the Rent Control Original Petition has not been suitably amended, even by way of amendment of the said petition, as to what purpose viz ., for what business the requirement is sought. 8. The landlord P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he is a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering and that he worked as Assistant under several persons after completing his Diploma in Civil Engineering and that he used to prepare blue print plan and is engaged in construction work by obtaining contracts. 8. The landlord P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he is a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering and that he worked as Assistant under several persons after completing his Diploma in Civil Engineering and that he used to prepare blue print plan and is engaged in construction work by obtaining contracts. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he intends to have his office in the petition premises in preparing blue print plan and to put up ammonia print by obtaining suitable machines and equipments. He has stated that he has got experience as Assistant Engineer. He has to start the business newly by making investigation and by purchasing necessary equipments and excepting that he has got previous experience on the construction side, he is not having any equipment. He would also state that to start a business, he requires Rs.50,000. It transpires from Exs. A.2 and A.3 that the landlord is qualified in Civil Engineering, being a Diploma holder, and has completed Polytechnic course in Civil Engineering. No doubt, the landlord has not stated in notice Ex.A.5 and also in the Rent Control Original Petition as to what is the business he intends to carry on in the petition premises but, however, it is clear from his evidence that he intends to put up office in the petition premises in preparing blue print plan and to put up ammonia print by obtaining suitable machines and equipments for which a sum of Rs.50,000 will be required. He is qualified in Civil Engineering, being a Diploma holder, as seen from Exs. A.2 and A.3. Though in the Rent Control Original Petition, it is set out that the petition premises was sought on the ground of own use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on business and on the ground of additional accommodation, the requirement of the landlord seems to be for the purpose of own use and occupation to carry on business viz., to have the office in preparing blue print plan and to put up ammonia print by obtaining suitable machines and equipments. 9. It is admitted by the tenant in the reply notice Ex.A.7 that the landlord is employed in construction work under somebody. It is also admitted by the tenant R.W.1 in his evidence that the landlord is working on the construction side. 9. It is admitted by the tenant in the reply notice Ex.A.7 that the landlord is employed in construction work under somebody. It is also admitted by the tenant R.W.1 in his evidence that the landlord is working on the construction side. Though it is stated by R.W.1 in his evidence that the landlord is having another building in the same locality, the same has not been proved. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner is a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering and has got experience on the construction side, the requirement of the petition premises for the purpose of establishing his office in preparing blue print plan and to put up ammonia print by obtaining suitable machines and equipments cannot be said to be mala fide . The landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition on the grounds of own use and occupation to carry on business by the landlord, additional accommodation and different user, out of which the eviction on the ground that the petition premises was used for different purpose other than for which it was let out was negatived by the Rent Controller and the eviction ordered on the grounds of own use and occupation and for additional accommodation have also been set aside by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In view of the fact that Rent Control Original Petition has been filed on all the said grounds, it cannot be said that the requirement of petition premises for own use and occupation by the landlord is without bona fide . Therefore, the finding recorded by the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the requirement sought by the landlord for own use and occupation for running the office in preparing blue print plan and to put up ammonia print by obtaining suitable machines and equipments as mala fide is erroneous and as such, that finding is to be interfered with. 10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with cost setting aside the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of eviction on the ground of requirement of petition premises for own use and occupation ordered by the Rent Controller is restored.