Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1668 (MAD)

Mohamad Hassan v. S. Zeenath Pareetha

2015-03-27

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

body2015
JUDGMENT:- 1. The tenant in the Rent Control Proceeding is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The landlady had filed an eviction petition on the ground of owners occupation for non-residential purpose. The landlady is the owner of the property and the tenant is a partnership firm. The demised premises is situate in the important location of the Madurai Town. The tenant had taken the premises on lease. The demised building constitutes three levels, viz., (i). In the ground floor, the tenant is using it for his business purpose (ii). In the first level, a portion is used for the business and the other portion is used for accommodating the workers and (iii). the second level is used for residential purpose of the tenant. 3. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid as advance and the monthly rent is Rs.9,800/-. The landlady also had filed R.C.O.P.No.152 of 2009 for fixation of fair rent and is said to be pending. The landlady is a widow and proposes to start a hotel business. The landlady is desirous of keeping the ground floor as dining hall and the first floor for the storing and the second floor for accommodating the workers. As the landlady has got no other income and the income derived from the demised premises is insufficient, the landlady required the petition mentioned premises for commencing the business. 4. The tenant has admitted the ownership, the advance paid and the monthly rent. The landlady also had agreed for selling the property, to one of the partners viz., Dawood Khan and an agreement to sell was also executed on 25/1/2008. A sum of Rs.25 lakhs was paid as sale consideration. As the landlady did not come forward to execute the sale deed, O.S.No.51 of 2009 was filed and the balance of sale consideration was also deposited into Court. 5. The authorities below, considered the documents and evidence and ordered eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved, the above revision has been filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. 7. The only question that has to be decided is whether the order of eviction is liable to be set aside. 8. The suit for specific performance filed against the landlady is dismissed and the same is pending before this Court in A.S.No.59 of 2012. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. 7. The only question that has to be decided is whether the order of eviction is liable to be set aside. 8. The suit for specific performance filed against the landlady is dismissed and the same is pending before this Court in A.S.No.59 of 2012. Therefore, it was contended by the tenant that the landlady having executed an agreement to sell with an intention to part with the property is now seeking eviction on the ground of owners use and occupation. This shows that there is no bona fides in the attitude of the landlady. 9. It was contended further by the petitioner that even in the petition, it is admitted that the landlady has got no sufficient income. The contention that she is going to commence business lacks bona files. 10. But a perusal of Ex.R.1 which is an agreement of sale, which is executed by the owner of the building in favour of one of the partners of the tenant that has got nothing to do with the tenancy between the landlady and the tenant. 11. The landlady also had filed Exs.P.5 to 9 which are the documents to prove that she has taken steps to commence the business. She has also further deposed that her father was a hotelier and that with his help, she wants to commence the same business. Whether the petition mentioned building is suitable for the said business or not is not the concern of the tenant. The Appellate Authority also further found that the conduct of the tenant is only to defeat the legitimate rights of the landlady. 12. Thus both the authorities below had held that though the landlady is not experienced in starting a hotel business when she requires the premises for her use and occupation, the tenant cannot dictate terms. 13. The contention of the tenant that on the date of petition, the landlady should be carrying on the same business in different premises is not sustainable as the same is not fatal to the eviction petition. 14. In fact, even in this case, the authorities have rejected the applications made by the landlady for commencing the business only on the ground that she is not having the premises of her own. 14. In fact, even in this case, the authorities have rejected the applications made by the landlady for commencing the business only on the ground that she is not having the premises of her own. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the authorities below and the order of eviction does not warrant any interference. 15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order passed in R.C.A.No.23 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai (Principal Sub-Judge), Madurai dated 28/1/2015 and the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.134 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Authority, Madurai (Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai) dated 14/2/2014. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who appears for the tenant only prays for a reasonable time to vacate the premises, as the tenant is occupying the non-residential building, sufficient time should be granted to the tenant for vacating the premises. 17. In view of the request that made, this Court is inclined to grant six months time to the tenant to handover the premises, subject to the condition that he files an affidavit of undertaking within a period of two weeks from today. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.