Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1799 (MAD)

B. Vijayakumar v. K. Ramkumar

2007-06-18

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2007
Judgment :- Challenge is made to an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Salem made in RCA.No.11 of 2004 affirming the order of the Rent Controller, Salem in RCOP.No. 62 of 2002. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. The Court is of the considered opinion that the Civil Revision Petition does not require admission at the hands of the Court. 3. The respondent/landlord filed a petition seeking an order of eviction against the revision petitioner/tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 by stating that the premises mentioned in the petition was required for his personal use and occupation. Further the landlord was not having any other property to carry on his business. The revision petitioner is occupying the premises of the landlord on lease and he need the same to carry on his business. The said petition was resisted by the revision petitioner by stating that he has paid advance sum of Rs.25,000/- and he has been paying a sum of Rs.500/-per month towards rent. Apart from that, the revision petitioner was not aware of the fact that in a suit in O.S.No.196/99, there was a compromise entered between the petitioner and his brother, and as such, the landlord should be restrained from interfering with his physical possession and enjoyment of the property except by due process of law. The landlord is having some other property to carry on his business. As such, the petition for eviction has to be dismissed. The Rent Controller on enquiry had allowed the petition and ordered eviction. An appeal filed at the instance of the tenant was also dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, the tenant as revision petitioner has brought forth the above Civil Revision Petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the shop in occupation of the revision petitioner is only 20 sq.ft, wherein the petitioner is carrying on his ghee and butter business. The respondent landlord is having another property and he can carry on his bakery business there. He further submits that the respondent is not in need of the premises and there was no bona fide on his part in filing a petition for evicting the petitioner from the premises. Hence, the petition has got to be dismissed. The respondent landlord is having another property and he can carry on his bakery business there. He further submits that the respondent is not in need of the premises and there was no bona fide on his part in filing a petition for evicting the petitioner from the premises. Hence, the petition has got to be dismissed. But the authorities below have erroneously allowed the same. Hence, the order of the authorities below has got to be set aside. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the materials available on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the authorities below in evicting the petitioner has got to be sustained since the revision petitioner does not carry any business whatsoever. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent landlord by making a payment of sum of Rs.500/-per month towards rent. Both the authorities below have concurred with the points that the revision petitioner/tenant though claimed to be carried on business of ghee and butter for one year, there was no material to accept the same. Hence, the contentions put forth by the landlord that tenant is not carrying on his business, but keeping the premises under a lock has to be accepted. There is no material to show that the landlord was having another property to carry on his business. Further it is also an admitted position that the landlord was carrying on his business somewhere. Under the circumstances, the authorities below found that the respondent landlord required the premises in question for his own use and occupation was a bona fide one. As such, the eviction ordered by the authorities below has got to be sustained. 6. Taking into consideration that it is a non residential premises, the Court can grant reasonable time to the revision petitioner to evict the premises and to handover the possession to the respondent landlord. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to evict the premises within a period of three months from this date. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. No costs.