Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1230 (MAD)

H. Syed Yusuff Ali v. R. Savariappan

2012-03-07

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/ landlord filed an application for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.1413 of 2009 on the file of the 15th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai on the ground of act of waste, causing nuisance and for owner's occupation. 2. The learned Rent Controller rejected the case of act of waste and ordered eviction on the ground of causing nuisance and owner's occupation and the same was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.4 of 2011 on the file of 8th Court of Small Causes, Chennai and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Courts below without properly appreciating the fact that no other tenants came forward to give evidence regarding the alleged nuisance caused by the revision petitioner and in such circumstances, as held by this Hon'ble Court in the Judgment reported in 2005 (5) CTC 537 (K.A.M.A.K. Nataraja Nadar & Sons Vs. R.Kannan) the case of the landlord ought to have been rejected. He further submitted that the landlord tried to evict him by adopting illegal means and refused to receive the rent and also disconnected Electricity which forced the revision petitioner to file Rent Control Proceedings for restitution of amenities and only after order passed by the learned Rent Controller the Electricity was restored and when the rent was paid that was not received and the revision petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.602 of 2009 under Section 8 (5) of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control ) Act to deposit the rent and that was allowed and till date he is depositing the rent into Court and these facts would prove that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord. 4. I have gone through the evidence produced by the parties and also the Judgment rendered by the authorities. No doubt, in the Judgment reported in 2005 (5) CTC 537 (K.A.M.A.K. Nataraja Nadar & Sons Vs. R.Kannan) this Court has held that when eviction is sought for under Section 10 (2) (v) of the Act namely the tenant has committed an act of nuisance the landlord has to examine the other tenants to prove the fact especiallly when the landlord is not residing in the same building. R.Kannan) this Court has held that when eviction is sought for under Section 10 (2) (v) of the Act namely the tenant has committed an act of nuisance the landlord has to examine the other tenants to prove the fact especiallly when the landlord is not residing in the same building. In this case also admittedly the landlord is not residing in the same building and therefore as per the above Judgment we will have to see whether the landlord has proved that the tenant has committed the acts of nuisance. 5. The landlord was examined as PW1 and he gave evidence to the effect that the tenant was washing his clothes in the common area, parking his vehicles only in the common area preventing the other tenants from using the parking area, removing the hand pump of the Corporation water connection and prevented others from taking water, damaged the Electric Motor and he was also taking shave in the common area to the annoyance of other tenants. While cross-examining PW1, no suggestion was put to PW1 denying those acts as stated by PW1 in the Chief-examination. Further, while examining as RW1 the revision petitioner/ tenant also admitted that he was washing his clothes in the common area and gave an explanation that he was doing so with the permission of the landlord which was denied by the landlord and which was also not spoken to by the revision petitioner in his counter and he has also admitted the parking his vehicles in the parking slot available for all the tenants and he also admitted that occasionally he used to shave in the common area. Therefore, when the revision petitioner himself admitted having committed all the acts of nuisance as spoken to by the landlord, there is no need for the landlord to prove the same by examining other tenants. Further, one cannot expect the other tenants to come forward to give evidence against the co-tenants in case of such nuisance as they would apprehend more problems for their peaceful living. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the landlord/ respondent has proved the acts of nuisance by producing the photographs and the same were also accepted by the revision petitioner, both the Courts below have rightly held that the landlord has proved the acts of nuisance committed by the tenant and ordered eviction. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the landlord/ respondent has proved the acts of nuisance by producing the photographs and the same were also accepted by the revision petitioner, both the Courts below have rightly held that the landlord has proved the acts of nuisance committed by the tenant and ordered eviction. As a matter of fact, the learned Rent Controller extracted the relevant pages from the evidence of RW1 to arrive at the conclusion that the tenant has committed the nuisances. Therefore, the Judgment relied upon by the revision petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the case. 6. As regards the another ground of eviction namely owner's occupation, it is not in dispute that the landlord is not having any other building of his own in the locality and the landlord has given evidence that the tenanted premises is in the ground floor and he is residing in a rented premises belonging to his daughter and he wants to shift his residence to the tenanted premises and on that ground the building is required for his own occupation. Even though, there were complaints made against the landlord by the tenant and the tenant has also filed the Rent Control Proceedings for restoration of amenities that would not prove that the requirment of landlord was not bona fide and the landlord was not able to prove his requirment. Considering the fact that the landlord does not have any other building of his own in that locality and he requires the building for his own use, both the Courts below have rightly held that the landlord requires for the building bona fide for his own occupation and ordered eviction. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Courts below and the revision is dismissed. 7. It is admitted that the landlord is having an advance of Rs.35,000/-and Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the tenant can adjust the advance from the future rents and reasonable period can be given to vacate and hand over vacant possession provided the tenant gives an undertaking to that effect. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that six months time may be given to the tenant to vacate and hand over vacant possession. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that six months time may be given to the tenant to vacate and hand over vacant possession. Considering the submissions of both the Counsel, the tenant is given time till 31.8.2012 on condition of filing an undertaking affidavit within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to vacate and hand over vacant possession before 31.8.2012 and pay rent till then. The tenant is also at liberty to adjust the rent towards advance and if the tenant pays the rent regularly, while handing over vacant possession, the landlord has to return the advance amount. If the tenant fails to comply with the direction of giving undertaking affidavit within the period stated above, it is open to the landlord to execute the order of eviction. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.