Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1727 (MAD)

M. Paulraj v. N. Paramasivan

2015-03-31

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

body2015
Judgment 1. The tenant in the Rent Control Proceedings is the revision petitioner herein. 2. A petition for eviction was filed by the land lord in R.C.O.P.No.43 of 1992 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. 3. The landlord is the owner of S.Nos.678/40 and the building thereon bearing Nos.1/70, 1/70 A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. As there were different tenants in the suit property, separate Door numbers were given by the Corporation. 4. The tenant is in occupation of Door No.1/70 and has been using it for a non-residential purpose. The monthly rent agreed was Rs.240/-. The tenant has been using the premises for sale of fancy items. As the portion in occupation of the tenant as well as the entire building is quite old and damaged, the building has only an asbestos sheet roof which is not very strong. The building has also become very weak and the same is very old and damaged by rain and shine. As the landlord intended to demolish the entire structure and put up a new building, he had filed the petition for eviction. He has already obtained sanction of the plan. 5. The landlord also averred that he has got the sufficient finance and put up a new structure. The landlord also had effected notice of eviction on 15/9/1991 for which there was no response. Hence the petition was filed. 6. The eviction petition was resisted by the tenant contending that the rent has been increased to Rs.1,275/- for the present. He has already invested more than Rs.2 lakhs in his business. It was further contended that the building is made of granite stones and teak wood and claimed that the building is in a very good state and does not require demolition. 7. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, after considering the evidence and documents filed in support of the respective cases, allowed the order of eviction. 8. The tenant also had filed Interlocutory Applications at the appellate stage for reception of additional document under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The additional documents were rent receipts alleged to have been issued by the Devasthanams for the petition mentioned premises. But the said applications were rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground that they were all post R.C.O.P documents. 9. The additional documents were rent receipts alleged to have been issued by the Devasthanams for the petition mentioned premises. But the said applications were rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground that they were all post R.C.O.P documents. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the location of the premises is within the CRZ notification. Hence no construction is possible. Even if the building is demolished, the land lord will not be granted permission to put up new structure in view of the restrictions. The tenant also claimed that the premises belonged only to Devasthanam and not to the landlord. Admittedly, he has been paying rent only to the Devasthanam and not to the respondent herein. As the location of the premises is within the CRZ Notification, the landlord will not be able to put up any new structure. 10. The tenant also contended that the R.C.O.P is not maintainable as the petition mentioned premises is not within the Corporation limits. 11. Considering all these objections, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, overruled the objections of the tenant and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. 12. In fact, the First Appellate Authority had passed an order that in the event of pulling down the whole structure and putting up the new building, the tenant should be given the priority either for a rent or for the purchase of the property. When such a direction is given which is also not challenged by the landlord, the tenant cannot have any grievance especially when the building is in such a bad shape and the tenant has been in the suit property even prior to the purchase of the property by the landlord in the year 1991. Therefore, the tenant cannot dictate terms as to what the landlord should do. When the revision petitioner has specifically denied the title of the landlord, he is not entitled for any indulgence. The landlord may require his building for putting up a new structure suitably for the modern days which would augment his income. Therefore, there is no bona fide in the claim of the tenant and the order of the Courts below are confirmed. 13. The landlord may require his building for putting up a new structure suitably for the modern days which would augment his income. Therefore, there is no bona fide in the claim of the tenant and the order of the Courts below are confirmed. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order made in R.C.A.No.16 of 2004 dated 20/12/2010 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Nagercoil, uphelding the judgment and decree in R.C.O.P.No.43 of 1992 on 4/2/2004 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum- Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. The tenant is given three months time to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the landlord.