Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 675 (MAD)

Manharlal J. Parekh, Prop. v. V. L. Narayanan

2008-02-26

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2008
Judgment :- 1. This Revision has been directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No.867 of 2006 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority), which had arisen out of the order in R.C.O.P. No.1649 of 2003 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The R.C.O.P. was filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), for demolition and reconstruction. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and accordingly ordered eviction, which necessitated the tenant to approach this Court by way of this Revision. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.V. Jayaraman appearing for the revision petitioner, who would focus the attention of this Court to Section 14(2) of the Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the landlord has not approached the Court with clean hands and bona fide. Even though in the Petition he claims to be absolute owner of the petition scheduled building New Door No.572, Old Door No.532, Anna Salai, Tenampet, Chennai-18, he himself has examined P.W.2 to show that the petitioner is not the owner. But under Ex.P.9 the petitioners children arc the owners. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would pose the question that if the petitioner in R.C.O.P. No.1649 of 2003 is not the owner of the building, then to what credit the affidavit to be filed by him under Section 14(2)(b) of the Act can be attributed. The said challenge was meted out by the learned counsel for the respondent by saying that he is prepared to file an undertaking before this Court with all the petitioners children, landlords under Ex.P.9. Apart from this, there is no perverseness or failure on the part of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in considering the evidence already on record in arriving at a finding. 4. Admittedly this Court while exercising the power of Revision cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below unless it is shown that the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is perverse in nature and against the evidence already on record. 5. 4. Admittedly this Court while exercising the power of Revision cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below unless it is shown that the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is perverse in nature and against the evidence already on record. 5. Under, such circumstances, the Revision is dismissed confirming the judgment in R.C.A. No.867 of 2006 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, on condition that the respondent files an affidavit of undertaking as contemplated under Section 14(2)(b) of the Act with all the owners of the property as per Ex.P.9 within one week from this date before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai), failing which the Revision shall deem to have been allowed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.