Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2504 (MAD)

M. Palanisamy v. P. Rajagopalan

2014-08-08

S.VIMALA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. VIMALA, J. 1. The Landlords filed Petition for eviction under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii) & 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as TNBLR Act) in R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 2003 against the Tenant. 2. This Petition was dismissed on 20/06/2006 on the ground that the denial of the title by the tenant was bond fide. 2.1. As against the same, the Landlords preferred R.C.A. No. 7 of 2007 before the Principle Subordinate Judge, Erode. The Appellate Authority gave a finding that denial of title was not bona fide and the Tenant is liable to be evicted on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. 3. Challenging the finding, the Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that there is no relationship of Landlord and Tenant between the Revision Petitioner and the Respondents and as the Respondents had no title, they are not entitled to initiate the proceedings under TNBLR Act and hence, the proceedings are invalid. 5. Whether there is justification in the denial of title or denial of title is towards procrastination is the issue to be considered. 6. The Appellate Authority has made a pertinent observation that the Tenant has filed the earlier Suit in O.S. No. 654 of 1995 for permanent injunction and in the said Suit the Tenant has recognized the Landlords herein as owners of the property. 7. As already extracted by the Appellate Court when the Tenants had admitted the relationship of Landlord and Tenant in a prior Suit for permanent injunction it is not open to the Tenant to turn round and deny the ownership of the Landlords. Under the stated circumstances, the denial of title of the Landlord appears to be mala fide and not bona fide. Thus, the tenant is liable to be vacated. 8. Under the stated circumstances, the denial of title of the Landlord appears to be mala fide and not bona fide. Thus, the tenant is liable to be vacated. 8. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the Tenant is that the building is in a very good condition and not in dilapidated condition and therefore, the requirement towards demolition and reconstruction is a motivated one on the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Landlord submitted that the condition of the building need not have deteriorated to the extent of the building being in the danger of crumbling down but the condition must be to the extent of indicating a bona fide requirement for the timely and true purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has considered these objections and him given a finding that the tenant failed to establish that there is no bona fides on the part of the Landlord in seeking to get back the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. Suffice to point out that motive for demolition and reconstruction is wholly irrelevant in a Petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b). Merely because the building is not old or dilapidated it cannot be contended that it does not require demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, the contention of the Tenant that the requirement on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide cannot be accepted. 9. The learned Counsel for the Tenant vehemently argued that the Tenant has been very regular in depositing the rent into Court in O.S. No. 654 of 1995 and only on account of rival claims, the Tenant was put under necessity of depositing the rent into Court and therefore, the claim on account of wilful default in payment of rent has to be rejected. Even assuming that the deposit of rent into Court is true, documents ought to have been filed showing the deposit before the Rent controller. The evidence of the Tenant is that from March 1995 to December 2005 he has to pay the rent. It is not his case that he has already paid the rent. The remittance under Exhibits R4 to R8 only show irregular remittance and not continuous and complete remittance of rent. Therefore, the Tenant is liable to be vacated on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent also. 10. It is not his case that he has already paid the rent. The remittance under Exhibits R4 to R8 only show irregular remittance and not continuous and complete remittance of rent. Therefore, the Tenant is liable to be vacated on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent also. 10. In the result this Civil Revision Petition by the Tenant stands dismissed. At the time of pronouncing Judgment the learned Counsel for the Tenant sought one year’s time to vacate the premises. The learned Counsel for the Landlord submitted that maximum of three months can be considered and not more than that. It is represented that the Tenant is a businessman and the outstandings due from the customers could be collected only if the Tenant is permitted to stay in the same place atleast for a period of one year. 11. Considering the submission made on both sides, ten months time is granted to vacate and handover the possession of the premises from today subject to the Tenant filing an Undertaking Affidavit to that effect before the registry within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order, failing which two months’ time would be granted to vacate the premises from today. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.