Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1321 (MAD)

Gurusamy v. Sivakumar

2005-08-10

A.R.RAMALINGAM

body2005
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition against the decretal order dated 26.9.2002 in R.C.A.No.27 of 1997 passed by the Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Villupuram confirming the order dated 7.7.1997 in R.C.O.P.No.12 of 1996 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Villupuram.) Aggrieved against the order passed by the appellate authority cum Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram in R.C.A.No.27 of 1997, in and by which the dismissal order passed by the Rent Controller cum Principal District Munsif, Villupuram in R.C.O.P.No.12 of 1996 has been confirmed, the landlord has preferred this revision. 2. The case of the landlord can be stated in brief as follows:- The revision petitioner/landlord is the owner of the petition mentioned premises and the respondent/tenant is occupying the same as tenant for non-residential purpose on agreed rent of Rs.390/= per month. The tenant has failed to pay the rents due from February 1995 March 1995 and however, the tenant filed R.C.O.P.No.16 of 1995 before the Rent Controller praying for permission to deposit the rents before the Rent Controller for the reason that the landlord refused to receive the rent without reasonable cause. Further, the petition mentioned premises is required for the purpose of running Tea shop by the petitioner's second son viz., G.Anand who had studied upto S.S.L.C., and that the said Anand is not occupying his own any other non-residential building at Villupuram where the petition mentioned premises is concerned. Further, the tenant has caused damage in a way decreasing the material value and utility of the building by demolishing and putting up flooring to the level of the road and such action of the tenant gives way for the water to enter into the house. Therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default, bona fide requirement for use and occupation of the son of the landlord and for causing damage and impairing the utility and value of the building. 3. Therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default, bona fide requirement for use and occupation of the son of the landlord and for causing damage and impairing the utility and value of the building. 3. On the other hand, the R.C.O.P was resisted by the tenant by filing counter to the effect that there is no question of wilful default on the part of the tenant and instead it is because of the wilful conduct of the landlord in refusing to receive the rent, the tenant happened to file R.C.O.P.No.16 of 1995 for the purpose of permission to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller and that petition was allowed and the tenant is depositing the rent regularly before the Rent Controller and that the alleged bona fide requirement for use and occupation of the petitioner's son Anand is false and mala fide and with oblique motive of evicting the tenant somehow or other due to the refusal of the tenant to concede for the enhanced rent of Rs.1000/= and enhanced advance amount of Rs.20,000/= and that further, the alleged damage to the building in a way impairing the utility and value of the building is false and it was done only with the consent of the landlord and even otherwise, there is no question of impairing the utility and value of the building and thereby in all, the R.C.O.P. is liable to be dismissed. 4. Arguments of the learned counsels appearing for either side were heard by me in detail in the light of the material records available and the orders of both the courts below. Though the revision petitioner/landlord has raised so many grounds such as non appreciation and consideration of the oral and documentary evidence by both the courts below and probabilities and improbabilities of the grounds, etc., it is needless to say that the question of wilful default depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and particularly, the conduct of the tenant and landlord has to be taken into consideration. Likewise, it is further needless to say that the bona fide requirement for non-residential purpose i.e., for the purpose of carrying on business also depends upon the facts and nature of the business and other circumstances of each case. Likewise, it is further needless to say that the bona fide requirement for non-residential purpose i.e., for the purpose of carrying on business also depends upon the facts and nature of the business and other circumstances of each case. So far as the ground of causing damage to the extent of impairing the utility and value of the building, there is clear cut admission on the part of PW1 the landlord, in the cross examination, that putting up of gate on the ground level equal to that of the road was done with his knowledge and consent and thereby there is no question of causing decrease in utility and value of the building. The fact remains that on refusal of the landlord to receive the rents for February 1995, the tenant has chosen to file R.C.O.P.No.16 of 1995 after exhausting his attempt to send the rents by Money Order and issuing notice to specify the bank in which rent can be deposited and finding no response, he happened to file R.C.O.P.No.16 of 1995 for depositing the rent before the Rent Controller. Both the appellate authority and the Rent Controller, have considered and analysed the question of wilful default elaborately and have concurrently found that there is no wilful default in payment of rents by the tenant. 5. Coming to the question of bona fide requirement for the petitioner's second son for the purpose of running Tea shop in the petition mentioned premises, I am to observe that both the appellate authority and the Rent Controller have elaborately considered and appreciated the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and RW1 and probabilities and reasonableness and have concurrently found that there is no bona fide requirement for own use and occupation as claimed by the landlord and instead it is nothing but a mala fide one. Both the authorities have also gone to the extent of observing that the tenant has falsely taken a stand as if Exs.P3 and P4 were licence fee for running Tea stall whereas in fact, that is not correct. Therefore, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, RW1 and other attending circumstances, both the courts below have concurrently found that the requirement cannot be a bona fide one. 6. Therefore, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, RW1 and other attending circumstances, both the courts below have concurrently found that the requirement cannot be a bona fide one. 6. Therefore, in the light of the above observed circumstances, I am also of the considered view that there is no acceptable and sustainable ground in this revision petition to differ with the concurrent finding of the appellate authority as well as the Rent Controller for the purpose of interference through this revision. In other words, the revision petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.