Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4617 (MAD)

P. Jothi v. N. T. R. Maragadam(Died)

2014-12-18

M.DURAISWAMY

body2014
Judgment : 1. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)NO.1297 of 2009 arises against the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No.46 of 2006, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai confirming the order of eviction granted in R.C.O.P.No.76 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller, Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk. The tenant is the revision petitioner and the respondents are the landlords 2. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)NO.2102 of 2013 arises against the fair and decreetal order passed in R.c.a.No.52 of 2010, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai confirming the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller, District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, in R.C.O.P.No.77 of 2003. The tenant is the petitioner and the respondent is the landlord. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. The landlady filed R.C.O.P.No.76 of 2003 for eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. The agreed monthly rent was Rs.3,300/-and that the tenant paid a sum of Rs.1 Lakh as security deposit. In the petition, the landlady has stated that she required the premises for conducting her own business and to store her textile goods. Further she has stated that she is conducting her own textile business at No.156, East Masi Street, Madurai and that it is a rented premises and therefore, the landlady wanted to shift her business in her own place i.e., the petition premises. The respondent/tenant contended that the property was situated in a most unhygienic surroundings and unfit for doing business. The premises is not situated in a busy locality. Further he has stated that there is no bonafide in the request of the landlady that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. 5. Before the Rent Controller, on the side of the landlady, two witnesses were examined and five documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked and on the side of the tenant, R.W.1 was examined, however, no document was marked. The Rent Controller, after taking into consideration the evidence let in by P.Ws, came to the conclusion that the landlady was carrying on business in a rental building and that she required the building for her own use and occupation for running her textile business. The Rent Controller, after taking into consideration the evidence let in by P.Ws, came to the conclusion that the landlady was carrying on business in a rental building and that she required the building for her own use and occupation for running her textile business. Further the Rent Controller found that the landlady and her members of the family bonafidely require the premises for their own and use and occupation. The Rent Controller ordered eviction in the R.C.O.P. Aggrieved over the same the tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.NO.46 of 2006 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of eviction granted by the Rent Controller. 6. At the time of filing the appeal, the landlady had died and her legal representatives were brought on record. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the landlady filed R.C.O.P. for eviction on the ground of own use and occupation, after her death, the claim of the landlady has become defunct and therefore, the eviction ordered by the Courts below have to be set aside. 8. It is pertinent to note that before the Rent Controller, the son of the landlady was examined as a witness and the Rent Controller also found that the petition premises was required by the landlady and her family members for running the textile business. Therefore, the contention of the tenant that the claim made by the landlady has become defunct cannot stand. 9. Before this Court, the landlords produced a partnership deed in respect of the textile business. A report was called for from the Rent Controller with regard to the said document and after recording evidence the Rent Controller gave a finding that the partnership deed is not a genuine document. Even assuming that the said document is not genuine, when the son of the landlady was examined as witness before the Rent Controller and that the Rent Controller has given a finding that the premises is required for running the textile business of the landlady and by her family members, the claim made by the landlady shall stand. 10. It is not a case of the tenant that after the death of the landlady, the legal representatives of the deceased landlady had closed down the business. 10. It is not a case of the tenant that after the death of the landlady, the legal representatives of the deceased landlady had closed down the business. In the absence of any contention raised by the tenant in respect of the same, the order of eviction granted by the Courts below are just and proper. The contention raised by the tenant in this Civil Revision Petition was also answered by the Rent Controller in his order. 11. It is also well settled that the landlady may own the building other than the disputed building, which is the choice of the landlady to carry on her business according to her convenience. The tenant has no right to dictate the landlady in this regard. In these circumstances, the fair and decreetal order passed by the Courts below are just and proper. I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)NO.1297 of 2009 is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. 13. With regard to the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.2102 of 2013 is concerned, the Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent at Rs.6,462/- The admitted rent was Rs.1,300/-and the same was enhanced to Rs.6,462/-. Against which the tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.52 of 2010 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller. 14. Since the landlords established that the demised premises is situated in a busy locality in Madurai and the same was let out for commercial purpose, the fixation of fair rent at Rs.6,462/-was just and proper. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 15. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant submitted that the tenant may be granted time till 15.07.2015 for vacating and hand over the vacant possession to the landlords, since the tenant is doing business in the premises for a long time. 16. The learned Counsel for the respondents/landlords submitted that he has no objection for granting time till 15.07.2015. Further the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the landlords have agreed not to claim the arrears of rent from the tenant, in the event of the tenant vacating the premises by 15.07.2015. 17. 16. The learned Counsel for the respondents/landlords submitted that he has no objection for granting time till 15.07.2015. Further the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the landlords have agreed not to claim the arrears of rent from the tenant, in the event of the tenant vacating the premises by 15.07.2015. 17. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, I grant time to the revision petitioner/tenant till 15.07.2015 to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the respondents/landlords without driving them to initiate execution proceedings on condition the petitioner/tenant file an affidavit of undertaking before the Registry on or before 22.12.2014, failing which the time granted in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand cancelled. It is also made clear that the respondents/tenants shall not claim the arrears of the rent from the tenant. However the tenant shall continue to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.6,462/- from this date till 15.07.2015. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.2102 of 2013 is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs.