Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 153 (MAD)

M. R. Subramanian v. T. K. V. S. L. Mahadevan

2013-01-08

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard both the sides. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The respondent /landlord herein filed R.C.O.P. under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for evicting the tenant on the ground of (i) personal occupation, so to say, for his two sons, to run their business in Film Distribution and also for providing place for stay and rest to the film representatives and to keep film boxes and other items, etc., and (ii) for wilful default in payment of the rent. The matter was resisted by the tenant. 2. Up went the enquiry, during which, on the landlord's side, he examined himself as P.W.1 and his son, Lankaram was examined as P.W.2, and the documents Exs.P1 to P117 were marked. On the side of the tenant, he examined himself as R.W.1 and documents Exs.R1 to R20 were marked. Ultimately the Rent Controller dismissed the petition on both the grounds. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the landlord preferred the appeal; whereupon the Appellate Court ordered eviction on the ground of personal occupation and rejected the appeal concerning the ground of default in payment of rent. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of eviction passed, the tenant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would pyramid his arguments which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: The Rent Controller, properly and appositely, dismissed the prayer for eviction on both the grounds, however, the Appellate Court misconstrued the facts and ordered eviction warranting interference in revision. The Appellate Court also referred to the fact that the tenant in the neighbouring non-residential premises belonging to the same landlord, was evicted and applying the same yardstick, the appellate Authority without independently approaching this case, ordered eviction warranting interference in revision. There are no bona fides on the part of the landlord in seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal occupation. Accordingly, the learned counsel would pray for setting aside the order of the appellate Authority and for restoring the order of the Rent Controller. 5. There are no bona fides on the part of the landlord in seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal occupation. Accordingly, the learned counsel would pray for setting aside the order of the appellate Authority and for restoring the order of the Rent Controller. 5. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent would pyramid his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The appellate Authority correctly analysed the facts and ordered eviction. Indisputably and incontrovertibly, both the sons of the landlord are jointly running their Film Distribution Business in a rented premises which is quite inconvenient for them to run their business. As such, the landlord sought for eviction which cannot be askance at. The neighbouring non-residential premises was also taken back from the tenant by the landlord as per the order passed vide the judgment reported in 2009-5-L.W.264. As such, the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord so as to confine the landlord's sons' requirement to one premises only. In fact, the demised premises involved in this matter as well as in the other RCOP referred to supra, are all situated in one building. In this factual matrix, the question of doubting the bona fides of the landlord becomes a well-neigh impossibility. No doubt, earlier one other RCOP was filed for eviction of the tenant on the ground of landlord's requirement for his thread business and finality was achieved by 19.12.1985 itself on dismissal of it and thereafter, only during the year 1996 the present RCOP was filed which has no nexus with the earlier one. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the revision. 6. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the order of eviction passed by the appellate Authority on the ground of personal occupation of the landlord, so to say, for the landlord's sons' Film Distribution business in the premises? 2) Whether the eviction of one other tenant from the neighbouring demised premises which forms part of the same building wherein the present demised premises, is situated, is an embargo for seeking eviction of the tenant herein from the demised premises? 7. 2) Whether the eviction of one other tenant from the neighbouring demised premises which forms part of the same building wherein the present demised premises, is situated, is an embargo for seeking eviction of the tenant herein from the demised premises? 7. Indisputably and incontrovertibly the aforesaid two demised premises are situated in one and the same building and are adjacent to each other. It is also a fact that as per the judgment reported in 2009-5-L.W.264, from the adjacent premises of the demised premises herein in the same building, the tenant was evicted and it was taken delivery by the landlord for the purpose of landlord's sons' business. It has to be clarified here that it is not as though such delivery was obtained even before the filing of the present RCOP for evicting the tenant herein. Two RCOPs were filed, of which one was ordered and the tenant was evicted, and that is covered by the judgment reported in 2009-5-L.W.264. Here the present tenant is occupying the neighbouring premises of the said premises, but those two premises are forming part of one and the same building. 8. The learned counsel for the landlord would convincingly point out that it is not in dispute that the landlord's sons are carrying on Film Distribution business. It is not as though the landlord's sons are having any other non-residential premises in the same town wherein the demised premises is situated. In such a case, there is no legal embargo for the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal occupation, so to say, for the personal occupation of his sons. The appellate Authority placed reliance on the previous judgment of this Court cited supra. The learned counsel for the tenant cannot try to find fault with the appellate Authority by contending that it had not applied its mind independently in this case before passing the judgment. I would like to point out that the precedents of this Court can rightly be relied upon. The precedents are cited in consimili casu excess where the factual matrix are almost one and the same. If the learned counsel for the tenant could highlight that the factual matrix involved in this matter is different from the other one, then one could expect the appellate Authority to independently apply its mind and deal with it. 9. The precedents are cited in consimili casu excess where the factual matrix are almost one and the same. If the learned counsel for the tenant could highlight that the factual matrix involved in this matter is different from the other one, then one could expect the appellate Authority to independently apply its mind and deal with it. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would also clarify that the SLP filed against the said reported judgment was also dismissed without any fear of contradiction from the other side. 10. Not to put too fine a point on it, I could see no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Appellate Authority in placing reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered with regard to the adjacent premises, from where the tenant was evicted on the same ground of personal occupation. 11. Simply because during the year 1985 the landlord sought for eviction of the tenant for his thread business and it was dismissed, that does not mean that after ten years, the same landlord should not file an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of landlord's sons' Film Distribution business. If any such petition was filed immediately after the dismissal of the earlier application, at least to some extent, mala fide intention on the part of the landlord could be discerned. Hence, absolutely there is no jot or pint of evidence to impute mala fides on the part of the landlord in view of my discussions supra. Hence, no interference with the order of the appellate Court is warranted. Wherefore, there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 12. On hearing the pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner / tenant would make an extempore submission that nine months' time might be granted for the tenant to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises concerned in favour of the landlord. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the landlord would raise objection for such granting of time. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the landlord would raise objection for such granting of time. By way of striking a balance between the two, six months' time from today is granted for the tenant to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the demised premises to the landlord, subject to the tenant giving an undertaking that he would regularly pay the rents and he would also hand over the possession of the premises concerned to the landlady peacefully on expiry of the said period of six months. An affidavit shall be filed in this Court by the tenant within a period of fifteen days from today, to that effect.