Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 784 (MAD)

S. v. P. S. Pandiarajan VS Navamani

2013-02-06

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a tenant. The respondents are landlords. The respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2008, seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Sections 10 (2)(i) and 10(2) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (shortly 'the Act'). 2. While so, the petitioner/tenant has filed I.A.No.12 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2008 under Section 30(iii) of the Act, stating that the building is exempted and R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2008 is not maintainable. 3. I.A.No.12 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2008 was dismissed by the trial Court, by an order dated 02.08.2010, after hearing both parties. 4. The petitioner/tenant filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Virudhunagar, against the order dated 02.08.2010 in I.A.No.12 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2008. C.M.A.No.1 of 2011 was also dismissed by the Sub Court on 18.07.2012, after hearing both sides. 5. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order dated 18.07.2012 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2011. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that both the Courts have committed error in holding that the building is not exempted under Section 30(iii) of the Act. It is submitted that since machineries are owned by the respondents/landlords, the building is exempted under Section 30(iii) of the Act and the R.C.O.P. is not maintainable. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that since the lease was relating to machineries also, Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is attracted and therefore, the Appellate Court committed error in confirming the order of the Trial Court. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords has submitted that both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have relied on Ex.R4, lawyer notice issued by the petitioner/tenant stating that the machineries are owned by the petitioner/tenant. Hence the petitioner/tenant cannot take a different stand from that of his own letter. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has nothing to do with the issue involved in this case. 10. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. 11. Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court relied on Ex.R4, the lawyer notice sent by the petitioner/tenant. The relevant passage from the lawyer notice is extracted herein: "The monthly rent as agreed to between my client and the then landlord Mr. P.A. Nagatrathinam is Rs.1,600/-per mensum according to Tamil Calender Month. 11. Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court relied on Ex.R4, the lawyer notice sent by the petitioner/tenant. The relevant passage from the lawyer notice is extracted herein: "The monthly rent as agreed to between my client and the then landlord Mr. P.A. Nagatrathinam is Rs.1,600/-per mensum according to Tamil Calender Month. Since at the time of inception there was no machineries and my client has installed his own machineries for running the Dall Mill and he has made improvements to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) to the then landlord. Out of the said amount the then landlord after repayment of one lakh Rupees, he agreed to treat the remaining amount of one lakh Rupees as advanced and further he agreed that the same will be payable at the time of vacating the demised premises by my client, Except the immovable property nothing is under the possession and enjoyment of our client as a tenant. Accordingly our client is a statutory tenant, entitled to the benefits of protection as provided under the provisions of Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act." In the aforesaid notice, the petitioner/tenant has clearly admitted that the machineries are owned by him and he only installed those macheneries for running Dall Mill. 12. In those circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Court in confirming the order of the Trial Court. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords, Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, has nothing to do with the issue involved him. The issue herein is as to whether the building is exempted under Section 30(iii) of the Act. Section 30 of the Act exempts the building from the purview of the Act, if the machieneries are owned by the landlord and the machineries are let out by the landlord along with the building to the tenant. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner/tenant himself admitted in his own letter that the machineries are owned and installed by him for running the Dall mill. There is no other piece of evidence produced by the petitioner. In my view, there is no perversity in the order of the Appellate Court. Furthermore, the learned counsel is not able to cite any other reason for interfering with the order of the Appellate Court. 14. There is no other piece of evidence produced by the petitioner. In my view, there is no perversity in the order of the Appellate Court. Furthermore, the learned counsel is not able to cite any other reason for interfering with the order of the Appellate Court. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.