Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1708 (MAD)

T. N. Velmurugan v. G. Devan

2015-03-30

K.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2015
Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 17.10.2014 in R.C.A.No.173 of 2013 on the file of IX Court of Small Causes at Chennai confirming the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the learned XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.1105 of 2011. 2. The tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent/landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 10 (2) (1), 10 (2) (iii) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 3. The case of the landlord is that the tenant was inducted into possession of the petition property in the year 2005 on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- for running a business ( taking Xerox, selling Ice cream and STD Booth). It is further averred that from the inception of the tenancy, the tenant did not pay any advance and monthly rents was not paid regularly. In the month of January, 2010, the rent was increased to Rs.2,000/-. The tenant paid the rent up to January, 2011, and from February, 2011 till May, 2011, he neglected to pay the rents. The landlord has further alleged that he requires the petition premises for the use of his handicapped son to carry on the business. The landlord has further alleged that the tenant has locked the premises for more than four months. 4. The eviction petition was resisted by the tenant by filing a counter, stating that he was inducted as a tenant in the year 2003 and at that time, he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance. The rent was gradually increased from Rs.900/-, Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- but, the landlord was not in the habit of issuing receipts; that the tenant paid the rent up to 05.05.2011 and thereafter, suddenly demanded rent at Rs.5,000/- and owing to the same, dispute arose between them. Since the tenant refused to pay the higher rent, the landlord refused to receive the contractual rent and thereafter, he sent a notice dated 04.07.2011 to furnish the details of bank account to deposit the rent. Hence, there was no willful default on the part of the tenant in payment of rent and the eviction petition was filed with an oblique motive to evict the tenant and the requirement is not a bona fide. 5. Hence, there was no willful default on the part of the tenant in payment of rent and the eviction petition was filed with an oblique motive to evict the tenant and the requirement is not a bona fide. 5. To fortify their respective contentions, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and produced Exs.R1 to R11. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Learned Rent Controller has held that the landlord has not proved the grounds of willful default and cease of premises, however, ordered eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. Findings of the learned Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.173 of 2014. 6. Sri.R.Margabandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no necessary pleadings nor proof to establish that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide; that on the date of filing of the eviction petition, three shops in the tenanted premises were kept vacant and the eviction petition was filed against the tenant only with a malafide intention. It is further contended that the nature of business to be carried on by the son of the landlord was not stated in the eviction petition and there is no proof that he is carrying on business and therefore, the findings of the authorities are perverse and are liable to be set aside by this Court. 7. Per contra, Mr.G.Renganathan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Ex.P3 certificate dated 14.06.2001, would reveal that the landlord's son is a blind; that though the petitioner/tenant claimed that on the date of filing of the eviction petition, three shops were kept vacant, but it was not established by the tenant through the acceptable evidence; that the learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 10.09.2013 and on the basis of the order, the landlord laid an execution petition in E.P.No.490 of 2013 and had taken delivery of possession on 10.02.2014. Only thereafter, the tenant preferred an appeal and also filed an application in E.A.No.15 of 2014 seeking re-delivery of the petition premises. The Executing Court dismissed the petition on 09.06.2014, which has reached its finality. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that after taking delivery of the petition premises, the landlord obtained a license from Chennai Corporation to run a tailoring shop in the petition premises. The Executing Court dismissed the petition on 09.06.2014, which has reached its finality. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that after taking delivery of the petition premises, the landlord obtained a license from Chennai Corporation to run a tailoring shop in the petition premises. The Corporation has also issued a license and as such, the landlord's son and daughter-in-law, who has taken training in tailoring, are running a tailoring unit. 9. It is true that there is no specific pleadings in the eviction petition about the nature of business for which, the petition premises was sought for. However, the landlord has specifically averred that he needs the petition premises for the own use and occupation of his handicapped son to carry on the business. Ex.P3 certificate reveals that the son of the landlord is a blind. P.W.1 had stated in his evidence that his daughter-in-law, wife of his blind son, is skilledin tailoring and embroidering and he wanted the petition premises to start a business of tailoring unit. 10. In (2000) 2 MLJ 691 (Nagarajan S. Vs. T.Sivaprakasam), this Court has held that when a landlord wants to provide accommodation for his son and also satisfies the statutory requirements, there is nothing to doubt about the bonafides of such claim and the Court can presume that the claim is bonafide. The learned Rent Controller following the decision referred supra has held that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. 11. The trial Court has also held that the landlord has satisfied the requirement under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, as held by this Court in 1999 (3) MLJ 303 (Jagatrakshagan T.V.(since deceased) and others Vs. N.Futaree bai and others). The Appellate Authority, after independently considering the entire evidence, held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide one. It is settled law that the subsequent events can be taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the landlord has taken possession of the tenanted premises and his son and daughter in-in-law are running a tailoring shop. In view of the findings of the fact recorded by the Authorities on proper appreciation of evidence and the subsequent events, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the impugned in this civil revision petition. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. In view of the findings of the fact recorded by the Authorities on proper appreciation of evidence and the subsequent events, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the impugned in this civil revision petition. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.