Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2588 (MAD)

Gnana Tamarai v. Y. Rajaram Reddy

2012-06-21

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 26.7.2010 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCOP No.1249 of 2008, this revision petition has been filed. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller. 3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the germane facts in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus: (i) The respondent herein filed the RCOP for evicting the revision petitioner herein/tenant on the ground of additional accommodation, for enlarging his business, i.e. for storing rice. (ii) After hearing both sides, the Rent Controller ordered eviction, as against which, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate authority, confirming the order of the Rent Controller. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of the respective authorities concerned, this revision has been focussed on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would put forth and set forth his arguements, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) There are four portions in the ground floor of the building comprised of three stories. Out of the four portions in the ground floor, two are non-residential and the remaining two are residential. Absolutely there is no necessity for the respondent herein/landlord to evict the revision petitioner herein, as there is nothing to show that the small portion under the occupation of the revision petitioner/tenant, would be absolutely necessary for enlarging the business of the landlord. (ii) There is also one other non-residential portion in the ground floor available and the landlord could utilise the same. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would pray for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below and for allowing this revision. 6. (ii) There is also one other non-residential portion in the ground floor available and the landlord could utilise the same. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would pray for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below and for allowing this revision. 6. In a bid to contradict the arguements as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would develop his arguements, the gist and kernal of the same would run thus: Out of the two non-residential portions in the ground floor, already eviction order was obtained as against one of the tenants and that non-residential portion was taken possession by the landlord and now the landlord has to evict only the revision petitioner herein. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord that he should restrict his requirement only in respect of one non-residential portion and not in respect of another non-residential portion in the ground floor. Accordingly, the learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the civil revision petition. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether both the Courts below committed any perversity or illegality in ordering eviction on the ground of additional accommodation in favour of the landlord. 8. Unambiguously and unequivocally, pellucidly and palpably it is made clear that the landlord is occupying the back portion of the two non-residential portions, in the ground floor of the said building and he is storing rice, as stated supra, in that portion in connection with his business. The landlord wants to demolish the partition wall between the area under his occupation and the area under the occupation of the tenants. 9. It is quite obvious that already out of the two tenants, one tenant was evicted and the landlord took possession. Now the landlord wants to take possession of the nonresidential portions under the occupation of the present revision petitioner. 10. As such, topographically if is viewed it is quite clear that by demolition of the wall separating the area under the occupation of the landlord and the tenants, the former, on evicting the tenant/revision petitioner would be having more space and that too, abetting the road and such advantage is quite axiomatic. Whereas the betel-nut, who is running a beetle nut shop could have his business elsewhere without much difficulty. Whereas the betel-nut, who is running a beetle nut shop could have his business elsewhere without much difficulty. In such a case, I could see no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below. 11. It is also well settled law that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord and say that the landlord should restrict his requirement etc. As such, I could see no merit in this revision. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 13. On hearing this order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would pray for a years' time to vacate the premises. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would object for the same. 14. Taking into consideration the fact that now-a-days it will take time for the tenant to find an alternate accommodation, I would like to grant six months' time for vacating one portion of the premises to the landlord, subject to payment of rent regularly to the landlord and accordingly it is ordered; to that effect an affidavit shall be filed by the revision petitioner within 15 days from this date.