Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2401 (MAD)

Abdul Rahim v. P. Ravindran

2008-07-14

S.TAMILVANAN

body2008
Judgment This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order, dated 20.12.2007 made in R.C.A.No.6 of 2006 by the Additional District Judge, Puducherry, whereby the order of eviction passed by the Rent controller in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 2005, dated 26.07.2006 has been confirmed. 2. By consent of both the parties, the main Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal. 3. It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein is the owner of the non-residential premises described in the Rent control Petition and the respondent is the tenant in the said premises, having a sweet stall on paying a monthly rent at Rs.800/-. The relationship of the petitioner and the respondent as tenant and landlord is not in dispute in the revision petition. 4. The respondent/landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition before the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Karaikal for evicting the petitioner/tenant on the ground of his own use and occupation for running his business. The respondents father had issued legal notice, dated 05.04.2004 through his counsel terminating the tenancy agreement with the end of 30.04.2005 and calling upon the petitioner herein to vacate and hand over the premises, for which the petitioner herein sent his reply. Subsequently, the respondent/landlord filed the RCOP for eviction before the Rent Controller. 5. According to the petitioner/tenant, the petition mentioned property is inadequate for carrying on his real estate business and for installing a xerox machine. According to him, had the demand for use and occupation was genuine, the father of the respondent would not have sold a larger portion of his property, prior to the date of filing of the RCOP. The respondents father was an aged person and could not have carried on the real estate business, as alleged in the Original Petition. 6. In support of his contention, the respondent/landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 before the Rent Controller and on the side of the petitioner/tenant, he examined himself as R.W.1 and no exhibit was marked on the side of the petitioner. 7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned Rent Controller allowed the Rent Control Original petition and directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition mentioned property to the respondent herein. 7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned Rent Controller allowed the Rent Control Original petition and directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition mentioned property to the respondent herein. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before the Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal under Section 30 (3) (a) (iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1969. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. Against which, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. .8. Mr.K.M.Aasin Shehrad, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly contended that there is no bonafide reason for the respondent/landlord for filing the RCOP for eviction. According to him, the respondent herein has not established his bonafide requirement. 9. Per contra, Mrs.K.M.Nalinishree, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent is running his business in a rented premises at Karaikal, for which, he has produced supporting documents, Ex.P.3, lease agreement, dated 19.04.2004 between the father of the respondent, late V.Radhakrishnan and one G.Rajan. The rental receipts relating to the same have been marked as Exs.P.7 and P.8 to establish that the father of the respondent was paying the rent to the said third party. 10. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the said G.Rajan was not examined before the Rent Controller to prove the bonafide requirement of the respondent/landlord. 11. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent herein, the respondents father late V.Radhakrishnan had issued legal notice, Ex.A.1, dated 05.04.2005 terminating the lease agreement and called upon the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession of the rented premises. Subsequently, the respondent has filed RCOP. The respondent herein has also produced the lease agreement between his father and one G.Rajan, dated 19.04.2004, along with rental receipts to show that he was running his business in a rented premises at Karaikal and therefore, there is prima facie evidence to show that the respondent herein has established that he was running his business in a rented premises in the same area. There is no contra evidence on the side of the petitioner to falsify the aforesaid evidence of the respondent. 12. There is no contra evidence on the side of the petitioner to falsify the aforesaid evidence of the respondent. 12. As there is concurrent finding by the courts below, unless the findings of the court below are against evidence or without evidence, this Court cannot hold the same as perverse finding, so as to interfere with the impugned order. .13. Merely because the respondents father was an aged person, the petitioner cannot say that he could not have carried on the real estate business. Even the respondent herein has stated that he helped his father in running the business. The other grounds raised by the revision petitioner is that the rented premises relating to the revision petition is only 150 sq.ft, which is inadequate for installing xerox machine and carrying on the real estate business. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is running the sweet stall within the premises, which is sufficient for running his business and therefore, the requirement of the respondent/landlord cannot be said as inadequate by the revision petitioner, as it depends upon the nature of the business run by the respondent/landlord. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in support of his contention relied on the following decisions : 1. Hameedia Hardware Stores, rep. by its partner S.Peer Mohammed vs. B.Mohan Lal Sowcar, AIR 1988 SC 1060 2. Nataraja Trading Company rep. by its partners and Ors vs. K.Manohar, 1995 (2) MLJ 27 15. In the decision, Nataraja Trading Company rep. by its partners and Ors vs. K.Manohar, reported in 1995 (2) MLJ 27 , this Court has held that a portion under the occupation of the tenant was part of the building in the occupation of the landlords and petition under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act was not maintainable. However, the landlords ought to have filed petition for eviction under Section 10 (3) (c) of the act and further, the landlords have not chosen to occupy the portion vacated by another tenant and if the said fact is taken into consideration, the authorities below ought to have rejected the application for owners use and occupation. Considering the decision, I am of the view that the decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 16. Considering the decision, I am of the view that the decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 16. It is not in dispute that the father of the respondent had sold a portion of the building due to his necessity, however, that was prior to the filing of the RCOP, which cannot be questioned by the revision petitioner. As per the findings of the courts below, it is seen that only a vacant site is available and that the respondent/landlord does not own any other non-residential building, within the municipal limit of Karaikal to carry on his business. There is no evidence on the side of the revision petitioner to show that there is any other non-residential building belongs to the respondent within the municipal limits of Karaikal. 17. In the decision, Hameedia Hardware Stores, rep. by its partner S.Peer Mohammed vs. B.Mohan Lal Sowcar, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1060 , the Honble Apex Court has held that for directing the tenant to hand over the possession to the landlord, as per Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, under the ground of owners use and occupation, the courts should have consider to the alleged bonafide requirement of the landlords. With due care and mere desire of the landlord cannot be the ground to decide the bonafide. The element of need for the landlord for his own occupation should be established by supporting evidence. The aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the respondent/landlord has established his bonafide requirements by adducing sufficient evidence both oral and documentary, as found by the courts below. The concurrent finding is no way perverse leading to miscarriage of justice. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned Judgment rendered by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.6 of 2006. Hence, the revision fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 19. While pronouncing the order, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that for vacating the petition mentioned premises, the petitioner/tenant be given nine months time. Hence, the revision fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 19. While pronouncing the order, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that for vacating the petition mentioned premises, the petitioner/tenant be given nine months time. As the revision petitioner is running a sweet stall in the petition mentioned premises, considering the facts and circumstances, I find it reasonable to grant six months time so as to enable the revision petitioner/tenant to shift his business to some other place, on filing an affidavit of under taking on or before 30.07.2008, failing which the respondent/landlord would be at liberty to execute the E.P. according to law.