Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2346 (MAD)

Muralidharan v. V. Ravikumar

2007-07-26

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2007
Judgment :- An order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, made in RCA No.2 of 2002 whereby an order of eviction made by the Rent Controller of that place in RCOP No.17 of 2000 was affirmed, is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3. The respondent-landlord filed the RCOP on the grounds that the revision petitioner-tenant is occupying the premises in question for non-residential purposes; that he has been allowed to run his clinic on a monthly rental of Rs.300/- from 1994 onwards; that it was actually agreed between the parties that he should run the clinic without causing any disturbance to the landlord; that now, it has become a nuisance; that apart from that, the landlord is also running an agency called ABT Parcel Service, in a rented building situated in N.M. Road, Avadi; that the premises in question is required for carrying on his business; that he is not owning any other building in that area, and for that purpose, it is required; that apart from that, for the purpose of carrying on the repairs also, the building is required, and hence, an order of eviction was to be passed. .4. The petition was contested by the revision petitioner herein stating that there was neither any hindrance nor nuisance to anybody, and thus, the first ground of nuisance was only invented; that it is not correct to state that the respondent is running an agency in a rented building; that he is having number of premises in and around that area; that he has also averred in the petition that he was to demolish the entire construction and to raise a marriage hall for which he has no means at all; that further, the building does not require any demolition and reconstruction, and hence, it was to be dismissed. 5. The Rent Controller on enquiry, agreed with the case of the landlord only on the ground of owners occupation and in respect of other grounds, he did not agree with the case of the landlord, and ordered eviction on that ground. Aggrieved, the tenant took it on appeal. The appeal also failed. Under the circumstances, this revision has been brought forth by the tenant before this Court. 6. Aggrieved, the tenant took it on appeal. The appeal also failed. Under the circumstances, this revision has been brought forth by the tenant before this Court. 6. Advancing her arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, all the grounds are actually invented for the purpose of eviction; that all other grounds have been rejected except the ground of owners occupation; that it is true that he has been running the agency called ABT Parcel Service, in a rented premises; but, at the same time, he is having number of buildings; that both the authorities below have commented that the evidence was not adduced by the petitioner-tenant; that it is for the landlord to plead and prove that he is not having any other building which belonged to him in that area; and that under the circumstances, it is not actually required for owners occupation. Added further the learned Counsel that when he claimed for owners occupation to carry on his ABT Parcel Service, in the next paragraph he has stated that the building was required for the purpose of demolishing the entire structure, and he was to construct a marriage hall; that this would clearly indicate that the ground of owners occupation was only invented for the purpose of eviction; that this has not been taken into consideration by the authorities below, and hence, the order of eviction has got to be set aside. 7. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondent on the above contentions. .8. After doing so and looking into the materials available, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of eviction passed by the authorities below, has got to be sustained. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent-landlord for running his clinic on payment of Rs.300/-per month as rent. All other grounds except the ground of owners ocupation, have been rejected by both the forums below. Now, the only available ground for the landlord was the owners occupation. The questions that would arise for consideration is whether it was bonafide, and whether he owns any other building in that area. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that he is running an agency called ABT Parcel Service, in a rented premises. Now, the premises in respect of which eviction was sought for belonged to the landlord. The questions that would arise for consideration is whether it was bonafide, and whether he owns any other building in that area. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that he is running an agency called ABT Parcel Service, in a rented premises. Now, the premises in respect of which eviction was sought for belonged to the landlord. That apart, there are two or three shops available. Now, at this juncture, the tenant, at no stretch of imagination, can choose or point to anyone of the premises, which the landlord could occupy. Though it was contended by the tenant that the landlord is owning number of buildings, no material or evidence was available to hold so. On the contrary, the landlord has not only averred in the petition, but also given evidence to the effect that he is not owning any other building. The respondent, who is the owner of the property, is already carrying on his business called ABT Parcel Agency, in a rented premises. In such circumstances, there cannot be any impediment in allowing him to occupy his own premises to carry on his business. Thus, it cannot be stated that there was any lack of bonafide, and the authorities below were perfectly correct in recording a finding that it is required for the personal use and occupation. Under the circumstances, the order of the authority below is sustained. 9. Now, the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that he is running his clinic in the premises in question, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, he has to be given sufficient time to find out a suitable accommodation to run his clinic. This Court is of the opinion that sufficient time has got to be given. Accordingly, 9 (nine) months time is granted for vacating and handing over possession to the landlord. The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit of undertaking within a period of two weeks here from. 10. In the result, this civil revision petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.