Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 677 (MAD)

Sayarmal Surana v. Kanal Kanwar Batha (died)

2012-02-08

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the tenant in both the revisions. The respondents/ landlords filed RCOP.No.1406 of 1999 on the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and using the property for different purpose and for additional accommodation. 2. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of willful default and additional accommodation and rejected the case on the ground of different user. Aggrieved by the same both the landlords and tenant filed appeals in R.C.A.Nos.483 and 490 of 2001 and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlords in R.C.A.No.483 of 2001 and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant in R.C.A.No.490 of 2001 and aggrieved by the same, these revisions are filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that both the Courts erred in holding that the revision petitioner committed willful default in the payment of rent and even according to the averments in the petition the rents for May and June 1999 were not paid and the application was filed in July 1999 and it is the case of the revision petitioner that the rent was paid and that was refused and the revision petitioner took steps to deposit the rent before the Court. The landlords filed the eviction petition and during the pendency of the eviction petition, the rents were paid and therefore there is no default much less willful default and therefore the orders of the Courts below in ordering eviction on the ground of willful default cannot be sustained. He further submitted that the landlords required the premises rented out to the revision petitioner, as additional accommodation for providing additional rooms to the 2nd son of the 1st respondent and after the revision filed the 2nd son of the 1st respondent has vacated the portion and he is living in a separate house and therefore the purpose for which the petition was filed for additional accommodation ceased to exist and hence the order of eviction on that ground is also liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the lower appellate Court erred in ordering eviction on the ground of different user and admittedly the portion was let out for non-residential purpose and the revision petitioner is also using the premises for non-residential purpose and without appreciating the same, the Appellate Court below has ordered eviction on that ground by allowing the appeal filed by the landlords. 4. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.A.Thiagarajan for the respondents submitted that even during the pendency of the appeal and this revision the revision petitioner committed default in payment of rent and only by virtue of the order passed by this Court, he paid the rents and therefore the subsequent conduct of the tenant would also prove that he is in the habit of committing default in the payment of rent even during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore the order of the Courts below holding that the revision petitioner has committed willful default in payment of rent cannot be set aside. He further submitted that the tenanted portion is required for the use of the 2nd son of the deceased 1st respondent and the deceased 1st respondent has stated in detail in the petition about the misunderstanding between his sons and for accommodation of his 2nd son, the tenant portion is required and even assuming that the son of the deceased 1st respondent has shifted his residence and he is now residing in a separate house that would only justify the reason for which the petition was filed and therefore the Courts below have rightly held that the building is required for additional accommodation. Further, the hardship that may be caused to the tenant by ordering eviction will not out weigh the advantage to the landlord and the tenant can get any property on rent, but the landlord who is the owner of the building cannot be expected to stay in a rented building and therefore the order of the Courts below cannot be interfered with. He further submitted that the property was originally leased out for the purpose of running the office of Chartered Accountant and the revision petitioner used the same for storing chemicals and that would cause a lot of inconvenience and mental torture to the respondents/ landlords as they are residing in the remaining portion of the building and therefore the eviction was ordered on all the grounds. 5. Heard both sides. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is admitted that Door No.75, N.S.C. Bose Road is a residential house having a ground floor, mezzanine floor and first and 2nd floor. Admittedly, the tenant is in possession of mezzanine floor. It is stated by PW1 in his evidence that the portion that was let out to the revision petitioner consists of two rooms and a hall and it is situate in the mezzanine floor and the same is used for non-residential purpose. He further deposed that there are three floors excluding the portion let out to the revision petitioner and in the first floor his brother is residing and in the second floor he and his mother the deceased 1st respondent are residing and in the third floor there is a bed room and another room. He further stated that in the ground floor there is a kitchen, hall and a bed room and after the marriage of the brother all of them are not able to reside in the third floor and therefore they need the portion in the occupation of the revision petitioner as it consists of two rooms and a hall. Further, in the petition it has been stated that the 1st son namely the 2nd respondent herein is in the occupation of second floor and the 2nd son is using the first floor and the mother along with her grand children are living in the third floor. It is further stated that trouble started in the family on account of the marriage of the 2nd son and unless each son is given a separate portion, it is not possible for her to live with her two sons in a single building and for that purpose the premises rented out to the revision petitioner is required for additional accommodation. It is stated by the revision petitioner that during the pendency of the revison the 2nd son has taken another house for his residential purpose and therefore there is no necessity to evict the premises occupied by the revision petitioner. Therefore, on that ground the revision is to be allowed. 7. It is stated by the revision petitioner that during the pendency of the revison the 2nd son has taken another house for his residential purpose and therefore there is no necessity to evict the premises occupied by the revision petitioner. Therefore, on that ground the revision is to be allowed. 7. According to me, the fact that the 2nd son has taken out another premises for his occupation would only prove the bona fide requirement of the landlords as it was stated in the petition that the present portion occupied by the landlords are not sufficient for the independent living of the 2nd son and therefore the 2nd son had left the premises and he is living in a separate place which is not owned by him. Therefore, the fact that the 2nd son is living separately would only prove the bona fide requirement of the landlords in requiring the premises for the 2nd son use and therefore in my opinion the landlords have proved that the building is required for the additional accommodation of the landlords for the use of the 2nd son. Hence, the eviction order passed by the Courts below under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for additional accommodation cannot be disturbed. The relative hardship has been considered by the Courts below and I am in complete agreement with that. 8. As I have held that the eviction order is sustained on the ground of additional accommodation, I do not want to deal with other grounds of eviction. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed and the order of the learned Rent Controller in ordering of eviction as additional accommodation is confirmed. As requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I am inclined to grant three months time for eviction from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on condition of filing an undertaking affidavit by the revision petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlords/ respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also on condition of paying the admitted rent regularly without fail to the respondents/ landlords till the revision petitioner vacates and hands over vacant possession of the property. If the revision petitioner commits default either in paying the rent or in filing the undertaking affidavit as stated supra, it is open to the respondents/ landlords to take steps to execute the order as ordered by the Courts below. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.