Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1577 (MAD)

H. Vijayakumar v. A. Charles Chandrasekar

2015-03-23

K.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2015
Judgment :- 1. This civil revision is directed against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in RCA No.426 of 2012, confirming the order of the Rent Controller (XI Small Causes Court, Chennai) in RCOP No.495 of 2010, dated 09.07.2012. 2. The unsuccessful tenant in the eviction proceedings is the revision petitioner. 3. The landlord/respondent herein initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant/revision petitioner herein under section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 4. The case of the landlord is that the tenant was inducted as per the lease agreement, dated 01.05.2003 on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- and in the year 2007, the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the premises for his own use and occupation. Though, the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises within a period of four months, thereafter, he refused to do so. 5. The landlord has averred in the eviction petition that his elder son has joined B.E. Course in St.Joseph Engineering College at Sholinganallur and staying in the college hostel and now, he wants to attend the college as a days scholar. Further, the landlord's daughter and his younger son are studying in Srilanka and they also intended to continue their studies at Chennai. Therefore, he required the petition mentioned premises for his own use and his requirement is bona fide. 6. The tenant opposed the eviction petition, contending that the agreed original rent of Rs.4,000/- was gradually increased to Rs.5,000/- and in the year 2009, the landlord has demanded higher rent of Rs.10,000/- and also refused to receive the rent; that the landlord has also disturbed his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, which necessitated him to institute the suit in O.S.No.253 of 2010 for permanent injunction. 7. It is further contended that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and the petition was filed with an oblique motive to evict the tenant/petitioner. 8. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord has examined two witnesses on his side and marked eight document viz., Exs.P1 to P8. The tenant has examined himself as RW1, but he has not marked any documentary evidence. The Rent Controller held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and ordered eviction. The finding of the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.426 of 2012. The tenant has examined himself as RW1, but he has not marked any documentary evidence. The Rent Controller held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and ordered eviction. The finding of the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.426 of 2012. Against the concurrent findings of the courts below, the present revision is filed by the tenant. 9. Mr.D.Panchatsaram, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the landlord had demanded unfair rent of Rs.10,000/- in the year 2009, while the tenant was regularly paying the agreed rent of Rs.5,000/- and with an oblique motive, the eviction petition was filed; that the landlord owns other properties in Kodambakkam, but there is no proper pleading to that effect in the eviction petition and that the landlord is a permanent resident of Srilanka and there is no necessity for him to come to India and therefore, the tenant cannot be evicted on the ground of own use and occupation. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the landlord has also filed another petition in RCOP No.1722 of 2012 under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu (Buildings and Lease and Rent Control) Act, for fixation of fair rent, which shows the intention of the landlord to evict the tenant and the petition lacks bona fide. 11. It is the specific case of the landlord that he is presently residing at Columbu and doing business there and his first son is studying Engineering Course in St.Joseph Engineering Collage at Sholinganallur, Chennai and his second son and daughter are interested to come to India to pursue their studies. The landlord has also given evidence about the bona fide requirement, in his evidence as PW1. 12. Exs.P1 and P2, Bank Challan would show that the landlord's first son is studying in St. Joseph Engineering College at Sholinganallur and his daughter has joined in the Loyola Matriculation School at Kodambakkam, Chennai. Exs.P5 and P6 are the Certificates issued by Srilankan Government, which reveal that the landlord was doing business at Columbu. Ex.P7 is the Certificate issued by the Indian Government and it proves that the landlord is having citizenship in India. 13. The tenant, in his counter, has not pleaded about the other properties possessed by the landlord in the city of Chennai. Ex.P7 is the Certificate issued by the Indian Government and it proves that the landlord is having citizenship in India. 13. The tenant, in his counter, has not pleaded about the other properties possessed by the landlord in the city of Chennai. However, in the cross examination, the tenant could elicit that the land lord owns other properties in Chennai. 14. It is settled law that to seek eviction on the ground of own use and occupation, the requirement is that the landlord or any of the family members shall not occupy the residential building in the city. The fact that the landlord owns other properties cannot be a ground to reject the eviction petition filed on the ground of own use and occupation. In the case on hand, the tenant has not proved that the landlord is occupying the residential building of his own in the city of Chennai and therefore, the contention of the tenant that the petition is not maintainable as the landlord owns other properties in the city of Chennai cannot be countenanced. 15. The Rent Controller, after referring to evidence of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P7 and on proper appropriation of the materials available on record, held that the requirement of the landlord is a bona fide one and the finding of fact of the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. In my considered view, the concurrent findings of fact, based on evidence, recorded by both the authorities, does not warrant interference by this court. 16. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders of the courts below. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenant is directed to handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord on or before 30.09.2015 and the tenant shall continue to pay the rent regularly till then.