Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3117 (MAD)

Uduman Lebbai Maraicar v. K. Arulnandhi

2012-07-18

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Karaikal in R.C.A.No.1 of 2011 in confirming the order and decree dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry at Karaikal in RCOP No.10 of 2004 , this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenant. 2. A thumbnail sketch absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: (i) The respondent/landlord filed the RCOP No.10 of 2004 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant on the grounds of wilful default and personal occupation by invoking Sections 10(2) (i) and 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act. (ii) The tenant resisted the RCOP. (iii) During enquiry, the respondent/landlord examined himself as PW1 along with his son P.W.2 and marked and Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and no document was marked. (iv) Ultimately, the Rent controller dismissed the prayer for eviction on the ground of wilful default; however, he ordered eviction on the ground of personal occupation. (v) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, appeal was filed by the tenant for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller. (vi) Challenging and impugning the orders and decrees passed by both the courts below, this revision has been focussed on various grounds. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant by placing reliance on the grounds of revision would pyramid his argument, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: a] Absolutely, there is nothing to evince and evidence the alleged bona fides of the landlord in seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal occupation, so to say, for his son conducting of jewellery business in the demised premises. b] Except for a vague statement to the effect that the landlord's son requires the premises for running his jewellery shop there is nothing to indicate and exemplify the bona fides of the landlord. Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the orders passed by both the courts below and for the dismissal of the RCOP. 5. b] Except for a vague statement to the effect that the landlord's son requires the premises for running his jewellery shop there is nothing to indicate and exemplify the bona fides of the landlord. Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the orders passed by both the courts below and for the dismissal of the RCOP. 5. Whereas in a bid to extirpate and torpedo the arguments and pleas as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would pilot his argument, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: (i) The landlord in unmistakable terms while deposing before the court as PW1 displayed and demonstrated his son's intention to start jewellery business and that his son PW2 also took training under a jeweller. Over and above that the landlord in the facts and circumstances of this case, could not prove anything objectively to prove his bona fides. Accordingly, he would pray for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether both the courts below were not justified in holding that the respondent/landlord required the premises for his son's bona fide requirement of the demised premises for starting jewellery business? 7. Indubitably and indisputably as on the date of the filing of the RCOP, the tenant was running auto spares business in the demised premises. PW2 the son of PW1, the landlord would also depose about his genuine intention to start the jewellery business. Nothing has been placed before this court as to whether any prior permission is required from any authority for starting such jewellery business. 8. I recollect and call up the maxim – Lex non cogit ad impossibilia – The law does not compel to impossible ends. Accordingly, if viewed, the court cannot assume and presume certain pre-requisites for starting jewellery business and expect the landlord to produce some evidence objectively. As such, I am of the considered view that there is no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by both the courts below. 9. In the result, I could see no merit in this revision. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.