Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 983 (MAD)

Jayaraj v. Alhaj Tahira Begum

2015-02-18

K.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2015
Judgment K. Kalyanasundaram, J. 1. The tenant who suffered an order of eviction is the petitioner in this revision. 2. The respondent/landlady filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlady has averred in the eviction petition that her husband died recently and she is not having sufficient income to sustain herself, that she knows tailoring and she has got a tailoring machine and she intends to open a tailoring shop in the petition premises. The landlady has further stated that she is not carrying on business in any other place of her own 3. The respondent opposed the eviction petition contending that he has been in the tenanted premises for the past 21 years, that the landlady is owning a building which consists of three floors and that there are two shops at the ground floor and one of the shops in the ground floor was let out recently to M/s. Sabana Travels. The landlady could have very well occupied that premises to start the tailoring business. It is further contended that one another portion is still vacant and the landlady is receiving huge rent from the tenants and also receiving pension, roughly Rs.2,000/- per month. The tenant has further stated that the landlady being a pardanishin lady with impaired vision aged about 60 years, it is impossible for her to do business at the tenanted premises. 4. Before the Rent Controller, the landlady and the tenant were examined as PW1 and RW1. Exs.P1 to P3 were marked by the landlady. The Rent Controller, ordered eviction and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Challenging the concurrent finding the present revision is filed. 5. Mr.R.Sundarrajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition filed by the landlady lacks bonafide and mere desire of the landlady would not satisfy the requirement under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. It is further contended that the tenant filed a miscellaneous petition only to bring the subsequent events to show that other portions in the same building have fallen vacant. The learned counsel further submitted that when the landlady was in box, she has given reply to the questions put up by the tenant as she was not aware of the facts and therefore the landlady is not entitled for eviction. The learned counsel further submitted that when the landlady was in box, she has given reply to the questions put up by the tenant as she was not aware of the facts and therefore the landlady is not entitled for eviction. The learned counsel relied upon the following judgments - (i) M/s. Trojan and Co. v. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235 (ii) Hameedia Hardware Stores v. Mohan Lal Sowear, 1988 (2) L.W. 102 (iii) Sankaran, A and other v. Balasundaram S.K. and another, 1994 (2) L.W. 152 (iv) T. Sivasubramaniam and others v. Kasinath Pujari and others, 2000 (1) L.W. 778 6. Per contra, Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Rent Control Act was enacted only to protect the tenants from the unreasonable eviction and it does not mean that the landlord is not entitled for possession of the property at any circumstances. The landlady has specifically pleaded in the eviction petition that she knows tailoring and she has got a tailoring machine on her own and sought the premises for starting a business. The landlady has further stated that she is not carrying on business in any other place of her own. The specific pleading of the landlady would satisfy the requirement of 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. 7. It is further conteded that both the authorities, on proper appreciation of facts held that the requirement of the landlady is bonafide and the same cannot be upset by this Court. The learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (i) A. Perumal and others v. P. Mohammed Sarbuddeen, 1998 (2) LW 556 (ii) Jayaram Metal Works rep. by its Partners Subramanian v. G. Jaganathan & another, 1998 (3) LW 79 (iii) Selvaraj v. Amudhavalli, CRP No. 2125 of 1995, dated 19.4.1999 (iv) Ravichandran & others vs. Natarajan Nadar and others, 2004 (1) LW 777 8. In the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court have held that mere desire to use or occupy the premises would not amount sufficient cause and the landlord has to prove the bonafide requirement while seeking eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. I respectfully agree with the dictums laid down in the decisions. 9. I respectfully agree with the dictums laid down in the decisions. 9. It is settled law that the landlords who are seeking eviction under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) have to establish four conditions- (i) The building should be non-residential in character ; (ii) The landlord should be carrying on business on the date of filing of the petition ; (iii) They should not occupy any other non- residential building of their own ; (iv) The landlord claims should be bona fide and not based on oblique motives like trying to obtain more rent or harass the tenant. 10. In the present case, the tenant has mainly contended that the other portion of the same premises have fallen vacant and the same was not utilised by the landlady. Exs.P1 and P3 are settlement deed and sale deeds executed in favour of the landlady and her daughter. The genuineness of the documents was not disputed by the tenant. 11. The Rent Controller, referring to Exs.P1 & P2 documents and evidence of PW1 and RW1, held that after the settlement, the non-residential portion allotted to the landlady has not fallen vacant and it is further observed that the landlady is not in occupation of any non-residential portion on her own and she is not doing any business at present. The Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlady is bonafide. 12. The next contention of the tenant is that the landlady is a pardanishin lady and she would not go out and do business. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rightly rejected the contention of the tenant as untenable. Both the authorities, on proper appreciation of evidence recorded a finding of fact that the requirement of the landlady is bonafide. This court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Rent Control cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. I do not find any perversity or material illegality in the order impugned in this revision. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.