Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2614 (MAD)

Iniyan Sampath v. S. Sridharan

2012-06-22

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A.No.766 of 2010 in confirming the order and decree dated 20.09.2010 passed by the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCOP No.213 of 2009., this civil revision petition has been focussed by the tenant. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller. 3. The long and short of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus: (i) The respondent herein/the landlord preferred RCOP No.213 of 2009 to get evicted the revision petitioner/tenant on three grounds, viz., owner's occupation, act of waste and denial of title. (ii) The tenant resisted the RCOP. (iii) During enquiry, the landlord Sridharan examined himself as P.W1 and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. On the side of the respondent/tenant, the tenant-Iniyan Sampath examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R5. (iv) Ultimately, the Rent controller ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of owner's occupation and the two other grounds were rejected. (v) Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority for nothing but to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller. (vi) Challenging and impugning the orders of both the courts below, this revision has been filed by the tenant on various grounds. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant placing reliance on the grounds of revision would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The requirement of the landlord was not bona fide. (ii) Absolutely, there is no evidence to highlight the bona fide requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises. (iii) Between the tenant and the landlord, tenancy agreement emerged only in the year 2004. Whereas the landlord would contend that ever since 2004 he was in bona fide requirement of the demised premises for his own occupation. (iv) There is nothing to demonstrate about his status in the building, wherein now he is occupying. Mere marking of a few tax receipts of the building in which, he is a tenant would not indicate that he is not owning any other property in the city. (iv) There is nothing to demonstrate about his status in the building, wherein now he is occupying. Mere marking of a few tax receipts of the building in which, he is a tenant would not indicate that he is not owning any other property in the city. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the tenant would submit that both the courts below simply accepting the contention of the landlord ordered eviction of the tenant, warranting interference in this revision. 6. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth on the side of the tenant, the learned counsel for the landlord would pilot his argument, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (a) There is nothing to exemplify that the tenant stated that the landlord is owning any other building apart from the demised premises in the city. (b) Ex.P5 the tax receipts would evidence that those tax receipts are standing in the name of one Punithavalli the owner of the said building and he has been occupying the same by paying a huge monthly rent of Rs.9,000/-; whereas he is receiving only a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month from his tenant as rent relating to the demised premises. As such the bona fide requirement of the landlord is beyond doubt and the landlord cannot be compelled to pay Rs.9,000/- per month for a premises, which he is occupying on a rental basis while his own building fetches him only Rs.6,500/- per month. (c) According to the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord his client is a senior citizen so to say a septuagenarian and he is in bona fide requirement of the premises. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the revision petition. 7. The points for consideration are as under: 1. Whether there is any evidence available on record to prove the bona fide requirement of the landlord in respect of the demised premises? 2. Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by both the courts below? 8. There is nothing to indicate and exemplify that the landlord is owning any other building in the city other than the demised premises. 2. Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by both the courts below? 8. There is nothing to indicate and exemplify that the landlord is owning any other building in the city other than the demised premises. If at all the tenant had suggested specifically that such building was under his ownership, then the burden of proof would be on the landlord to prove that the said building referred to by the tenant was not his building. The negative cannot be proved. "Affirmanti, non neganti, incumbit probatio: The burden of proof lies upon him who asserts and not upon him who denies. The Rent Controller cannot call upon the landlord to prove positively with any document that he is not owning any property in the city. As such, it is beyond doubt that the landlord is not owning any residential premises of his own in the city other than the demised premises. 9. Indubitably and indisputably the landlord is a retired Engineer, getting pension, and who is paying a sum of Rs.9,000/- as monthly rent, to a different person in respect of the premises under his occupation. It is therefore, quite obvious that his requirement is bona fide. 10. I re-collect and call-up the following maxim –Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta – Outward acts indicate the thoughts hidden within. 'Bona fide' is a mental element and that could be understood only to the extent possible from the evidence adduced and available on record. 11. My discussion supra would evince and evidence, demonstrate and display that the requirement of the landlord is actuated by genuine intention to occupy his premises and there is nothing to show that he wanted to obtain more money from the existing tenant or that he wanted to lease out the premises for higher rent after evicting the present tenant. In such a case, one cannot find fault with the findings of both the courts below and there is no perversity or illegality in those orders. 12. Hence, taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter, I am of the view that the revision has to be dismissed confirming the orders passed by both the courts below. 13. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14. 12. Hence, taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter, I am of the view that the revision has to be dismissed confirming the orders passed by both the courts below. 13. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14. On hearing the order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would make an extempore submission to the effect that his client is a political personality touring throughout Tamil Nadu and he would be requiring at least a year's time to vacate and hand over the premises to the landlord. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit that at the most three months' time might be granted. 15. By way of striking a balance between the two, and taking into consideration the fact that the tenant would obviously require some considerable time to find an alternate accommodation, I would like to grant nine months' time from this date to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord, subject to payment of rent regularly till handing over possession. The petitioner shall file an affidavit to that effect within 15 days from today.