Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2692 (MAD)

K. Ravindran Pillai & Another v. R. Shankar

2008-07-29

S.TAMILVANAN

body2008
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 06.03.2008 passed in R.C.A.No.1200 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the Fair and Decreetal Order, dated 10. 2006 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1975 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Controller / XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein had filed R.C.O.P.No.1975 of 2005 before the Rent Controller under Sections 10 (3) (c) and 10 (2) (ii) (a) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as Act) to evict the revision petitioners / tenants. In support of the contention of the respondent / landlord, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked and on the side of the revision petitioners / tenants, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.8 were marked before the Rent Controller. 3. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned Rent Controller decided the R.C.O.P in favour of the respondent / landlord and ordered for eviction of the revision petitioners on both the grounds. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the revision petitioners preferred the aforesaid Rent Control Appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Control Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller that the respondent / landlord has established his requirement of the petition mentioned premises on bonafide grounds and on that ground, upheld the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, however, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that there was a wrong conclusion by the Rent Controller that the first appellant sublet portion of the petition mentioned premises to the second appellant, accordingly, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, on the ground of subletting was set aside by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The revision petitioners have preferred this revision against the order of eviction passed on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (C) of the Act. The revision petitioners have preferred this revision against the order of eviction passed on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (C) of the Act. There is no revision preferred by the respondent / landlord against the finding of the court below on the ground alleged under Section 10 (2) (ii) (a)of the Act for setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under the aforesaid section. 5. In this Civil Revision Petition, the order of eviction passed on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority alone is under challenge. .6. The respondent herein originally filed the petition for eviction of the revision petitioners / tenants, on the ground of unauthorised sub-lease, under Section 10 (2) of the Act by the first petitioner to the second petitioner herein. The court below found that the respondent has not established the allegation that portion of the premises has been let out to any sub-tenant. There is no appeal preferred by the respondent / landlord against the aforesaid finding of the court below and therefore, it is clear that the eviction pleaded on the ground of unauthorised sub-lease by the first revision petitioner has been negatived and the same reached its finality. 7. The only point to be determined in this revision is whether the whether the respondent / landlord has established the bonafide requirement of the RCOP premises for his additional accommodation, for deciding this Civil Revision Petition. 8. It is not in dispute that the respondent / landlord, has alleged in the RCOP that the property bearing Plot No.3694-A, Door No.105Q, 6th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40 consists of 5 shops, that in the said property landlord is occupying one portion and carrying on fast-food business under the name and style M/s. Shanks Coffee House. The question arising for consideration is whether the business of the landlord has to be expanded, for which he is in need of additional accommodation. The respondent says that he wants to expand his fast-food business into hotel business and for carrying on the said hotel business, the respondent / landlord is in need of sufficient space to accommodate the customers. The respondent says that he wants to expand his fast-food business into hotel business and for carrying on the said hotel business, the respondent / landlord is in need of sufficient space to accommodate the customers. According to the respondent / landlord, the shop premises under the occupation of the revision petitioners is bonafidely required for the respondent / landlord for carrying on the hotel business. 9. Per contra, the revision petitioner / tenant has stated that there is no bonafide reason for the respondent / landlord to evict him from the petition mentioned premises. It is not in dispute that the respondent had filed O.S.No.357 of 1998 in the City Civil Court, for evicting the tenant, which was dismissed on 11.06.2004 and against the said judgment, appeal is pending before the appellate court. .10. Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the respondent had originally filed the aforesaid suit, stating that the first petitioner had inducted some other person as sub-tenant, which could not be proved by the respondent, hence, the same was dismissed, subsequently, in the R.C.O.P, the respondent stated the second appellant an employee under the first appellant as subtenant and filed the R.C.O.P, however, that was also negatived by the court below and therefore, the intention of the respondent / landlord is only to evict the revision petitioners by hook or by crook. 11. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that merely because the respondent / landlord could not establish the case that the first revision petitioner had sub-let a portion of the property to some other person, the Court cannot presume that eviction sought for on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (c) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is on false grounds. 12. As held by the court below, this Court is also of the view that merely because the respondent could not establish one of the grounds pleaded for seeking eviction, the other ground need not be a false claim, since such inference cannot be drawn by Court, as both the grounds are independent for seeking eviction of the tenant. 13. It is an admitted fact that the landlord is carrying his coffee house in one portion of the building and the first revision petitioner is occupying another portion of the building as tenant, by running his shop. 13. It is an admitted fact that the landlord is carrying his coffee house in one portion of the building and the first revision petitioner is occupying another portion of the building as tenant, by running his shop. Being the landlord, occupying one portion of the building, can claim additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (a) of the Act by establishing his bonafide requirement. In the instant case, the respondent / landlord required the petition mentioned premises for expanding his coffee house as that of a hotel. In the evidence, as P.W.1, the respondent / landlord has deposed in his chief-examination that he is running fast-food business for about 5 years. According to him, there is insufficient space for the customers to sit in his business premises and out of the other shop portions, he got the possession of two shops and also obtained an order of eviction in respect of one more shop portion in R.C.O.P.No.1976 of 2005 and other shop is also occupied by the respondent herein. According to him, if the middle wall is removed, he can expand and run his hotel business. .14. It is seen that Ex.P.1 is a copy of the plan showing the shops in the petition mentioned building and Ex.P.2 is the license given to the landlord to run the tea and tiffen centre. Ex.P.2 was issued by the Corporation of Chennai, Revenue Department on 02.03.2006. Ex.P.3 is the photos showing the petition mentioned premises and other shops in the building. As per the finding of the court below, it is seen that the landlord is the owner of the seven shops in the building and out of the seven shops, one shop is under the occupation of the tenant and in two shops, the landlord is carrying on his business and the other shops are vacant. According to the landlord, he requires all the shop portions for carrying on his hotel business. 15. The first revision petitioner, who was examined as R.W.1 has stated in his evidence that there are seven shops belongs to the respondent / landlord, out of which, the respondent is running an fast-food business in a portion in the name and style of M/s. Shanks Coffee House, in one shop portion, the revision petitioner is running his tea shop and that all the shops are divided only by a middle wall. Therefore, it is clear that except the petition premises, other portions are in the possession of the landlord and the landlord wants to carry on business in all shop portions by removing the dividing walls. 16. According to Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, there are seven shops available in the building belongs to the respondent / landlord, however, the same is stated as five shops, suppressing the fact. As contended by Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, even in the counter, the revision petitioners have not disputed that there are seven shops in the building, hence, it could have been due to subsequent partition of the premises. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that how many shops are available in the building is not material in deciding this Revision Petition. The Court has to consider whether the alleged requirement of the respondent / landlord is bonafide or not for deciding this revision. While testing the bonafide requirement, the Court has to decide whether the intention of the landlord is to evict the tenant by hook or by crook or he is really in need of the premises let out to the tenant for his additional accommodation. .17. There is a concurrent finding by the Court below that the respondent / landlord has established his bonafide requirements for additional accommodation for running his M/s. Shanks Coffee House, the fast-food business. As contended by Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court has wider power under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, than under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, the revision petition has been filed under Section 25(1) of the aforesaid Act. .18. As ruled by the Honble Apex Court in M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co., Ltd., vs. Govindas Purushothamdas & anr, reported in 2001-3-LW 224, the High Court is empowered to disturb the concurrent finding of facts, if it is not satisfied with the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or orders of the courts below. In the aforesaid decision, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows : ."On a plain reading of Section 25 of the Act, it is clear that the revisional jurisdiction vested in the High Court under that Section is wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the aforesaid decision, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows : ."On a plain reading of Section 25 of the Act, it is clear that the revisional jurisdiction vested in the High Court under that Section is wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the regularity or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, on examination, it appears to the High Court that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass such orders accordingly." 19. In the decision Chandramohan vs. Sengottaiyan, reported in 2002 (II) MLJ 1 (SC), the Honble Apex Court has held that where the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority is illegal, erroneous or perverse, the High Court having regard to the ambit of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act will be well within its jurisdiction in reversing the findings impugned before it and recordings its own findings. .20. This Court in the decision, Suganthi vs. Sambalingam, reported in 2000 (II) MLJ 31 , has held that if the appellate authority has not decided its finding in accordance with law and jurisdiction and if any, ground is made out for interference under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, this Court can interfere with the decision, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. Even in the case of concurrent finding, if the weight of the evidence has not taken into consideration by the courts below and has derived certain conclusions, leading to miscarriage of justice, on the ground of material irregularity, the High Court can interfere with the same. It is clear that this Court under Section 25 (1) of the Act is empowered to interfere even with the concurrent finding of facts and weigh the correctness, legality and propriety of any decision or order, passed by the court below, if it appears to this Court that such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, to meet the ends of justice. 121. 121. In the instant case, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, only based on the evidence available, has confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the respondent / landlord has established his bonafide requirement for additional accommodation and accordingly, rendered the Judgment under Section 10 (3) (C) of the Act. Under Section 10 (3) (C) of the Act, the landlord or landlady can file a petition for evicting the tenant on the ground of additional accommodation, which may be either residential and non-residential building or both. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the respondent / landlord is running his fast-food business in two shop portions of the building. According to him, for expanding his fast-food business, he is in need of additional accommodation of the remaining portion of the building. 122. As per the findings of the court below, the other tenants, who were in occupation of certain other shop portions of the building were also evicted by the respondent / landlord through Court. The landlord, who was examined as P.W.1 has also deposed, as per the findings of the court below, that he had obtained an order of eviction of the other tenants and if the middle wall is removed, he can expand his business and will get additional accommodation for expanding his fast-food business. 123. The first revision petitioner, who was examined as R.W.1 has also admitted that the aforesaid shop portions are only in the same building in Plot No.3694-A, Door No.105Q, 6th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40, belongs to the respondent / landlord and he has admitted that each portion has been partitioned by a wall and having separate shutters. The respondent / landlord is running his fast-food business in two shop portions of the building. As per the evidence of the first revision petitioner / R.W.1, the tenant is also running his other snack bar business at No.36, South Mada Street, Villivakkam, Chennai, in the name of Durgai Ammal Snacks Bar and another at Naval Hospital Road in the name of Central Snacks Bar. As per his evidence, he is running one of the shops in his own premises. In this revision petition, this Court has to consider whether the requirement for additional accommodation pleaded by the landlord is bonafide or not. As per his evidence, he is running one of the shops in his own premises. In this revision petition, this Court has to consider whether the requirement for additional accommodation pleaded by the landlord is bonafide or not. It is not in dispute that the respondent / landlord is running his own business and he has also vacated other tenants, by way of legal proceedings, in order to expand his business. 124. In such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no error in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below that the respondent / landlord has established his bonafide requirement for additional accommodation. On the facts and circumstances, I hold that the Civil Revision Petition fails and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 125. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, considering the first revision petitioner running his tea stall in the schedule of property, mentioned in the RCOP, I am of the view to provide sufficient time for the first revision petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession of the property to the respondent / landlord. Accordingly, I find it reasonable to grant three months time from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, to vacate and hand over the possession of the property to the respondent / landlord . No order as to cost.