Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3061 (MAD)

Natarajan v. K. Sivakumar

2017-09-07

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 17.08.2006, passed in R.C.A.No.18 of 2005, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 27.04.2005, passed in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2001, on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, by the tenant. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the rent control original petition. 3. It is found that the landlord has moved R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2001 against the tenant seeking for his eviction on two grounds, namely, wilful default and owner’s occupation. It is found that the case of the landlord as regards the wilful default had been negatived by the Courts below and hence, the said case of the landlord does not require to be adverted to in this civil revision petition. 4. In brief, according to the landlord, the petition schedule property (hereinafter, referred to as “the property”) belonged to him and that the tenant is in occupation of the same by carrying on his tailoring business at a monthly rent of Rs.75/- and prior to the tenant, his father was carrying on business in the same property. The landlord is a practicing Advocate in Thiruvaiyaru and Thanjavur and hence, towards the meeting of his clients, he requires the property and as he hails from Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, it is mandatory for him to open an Office at Thiruvaiyaru and in this connection, the landlord has issued a notice, dated 16.12.2000, apprising the tenant about his requirement of the property for starting his Advocate profession at Thiruvaiyaru and the tenant, in his reply, has averred that the landlord is owning several buildings at Thiruvaiyaru Town and the same is not correct and hence, the tenant should be evicted from the property on the ground of owner’s occupation. 5. The case of the tenant in brief is that he is in occupation of the property as a tenant and running a tailoring business therein and to the notice sent by the landlord, a suitable reply has been sent and it is false to state that the portion, which is in the occupation of the tenant, is required for the landlord’s personal occupation for running the Advocate Office. The said demand is made only for getting higher rent and the property is also not suitable for running the Advocate Office and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the landlord’s case, P.W.1 has been examined and Ex.P1 has been marked and on the side of the tenant, R.W.1 has been examined and Exs.R1 to R5 have been marked. 7. On a consideration of the materials placed, the Rent Controller was pleased to entertain the petition of the landlord on the ground of owner’s occupation. As seen above, as regards the eviction sought for by the landlord on the ground of wilful default, the same had been negatived. On appeal, by the tenant, it is found that the Rent Control Appellate Authority also, on the basis of the materials placed, concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller as regards the entitlement of the property for the landlord on the ground of owner’s occupation and resultantly, dismissed appeal. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 8. The following points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition: (i) Whether the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant from the property on the ground of owner’s occupation? and (ii) To what relief the petitioner/tenant is entitled to? POINT NO.I: 9. It is not in dispute that the property belongs to the landlord. It is also not in dispute that the landlord is a practising Advocate and at present his office is located at Thanjavur. It is the case of the landlord that since he belongs to Thiruvaiyaru Taluk and also having clientele at Thiruvaiyaru, he is in requirement of the property for running his Advocate office at Thiruvaiyaru and hence, the tenant should be evicted from the property on the ground of owner’s occupation. The said case of the landlord is resisted by the tenant on the footing that the demand has not been made bona fidely and only with a view to extract higher rent, the said ground is created by the landlord as if he requires the property for running his Advocate office at Thiruvaiyaru and further, according to the tenant, the property is not fit for running the Advocate office and the landlord owns other buildings in the town and hence, he is not entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of owner’s occupation. 10. 10. Prior to the institution of the proceedings, it is found that the landlord had issued a notice, which has been marked as Ex.P1, to the tenant and to the same, it is found that the tenant has also sent a reply. It is found that the landlord is a practising Advocate and the said fact is not in controversy. It is, thus, found that the landlord is an Advocate and he is entitled to practise in any Court as he desires provided he has work in the concerned Court. It is also not in dispute that the landlord belongs to Thiruvaiyaru Taluk and it is, thus, found that the desire of the landlord to start an Advocate office at Thiruvaiyaru cannot be attributed with any motive as put forth by the tenant. The main resistance put forth by the tenant to the requirement of the property by the landlord for owner’s occupation is that the landlord owns various other properties in Thiruvaiyaru Town and hence, the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. To the same, it has been averred by the landlord that the properties referred by the tenant do not belong to him and hence, the tenant is under a wrong notion that he owns various properties at Thiruvaiyaru Taluk. Even thereafter, it is found that the tenant has not chosen to place any material to hold that the landlord owns other properties at Thiruvaiyaru Town to disentitle the landlord to seek for eviction of the tenant from the property as pleaded. In such view of the matter, the resistance put forth by the tenant to the landlord’s need for the property that he owns other properties also in the Town cannot be accepted sans any material pointing to the same. Therefore, it is found that the tenant has set up a false case that the landlord owns other properties at Thiruvaiyaru Taluk. 11. The tenant has not disputed the profession of the landlord and it is found that as per the case of the landlord, he is also having clients hailing from Thiruvaiyaru and also having practice at Thiruvaiyaru Court. Therefore, it is found that the tenant has set up a false case that the landlord owns other properties at Thiruvaiyaru Taluk. 11. The tenant has not disputed the profession of the landlord and it is found that as per the case of the landlord, he is also having clients hailing from Thiruvaiyaru and also having practice at Thiruvaiyaru Court. Further, it is also found that as an Advocate practicing now at Thanjavur, it is found that the landlord would be having clients even from Thiruvaiyaru and thus, it could be seen that the requirement of the landlord to start an Advocate Office at Thiruvaiyaru is much required for his profession and hence, it is a bona fide one and in such view of the matter, it could be seen that no motive could be attributed as against the said requirement of the landlord. 12. It is argued by the learned counsel for the tenant that considering the evidence of the landlord in toto, the Court should hold that he owns other properties also and that his requirement may not be a genuine one and the requirement has been made only to extract higher rent from the tenant. However, on a perusal of the evidence of the landlord examined as P.W.1 cumulatively, it could be seen that he has disputed the case of the tenant that he owns other properties in Thiruvaiyaru Town vehemently and also established his need for the property for running his Advocate Office at Thiruvaiyaru. In such view of the matter, when the said requirement is found to be a bona fide one and also legally made and when no material as such has been placed by the tenant to take a different view than that, it is found that the Courts below have rightly held that the landlord is entitled to seek for the possession of the property after evicting the tenant on the ground of owner’s occupation. I, therefore, hold that the landlord is entitled to seek for eviction of the tenant from the property on the ground of owner’s occupation. Accordingly, Point No. I is answered in favour of the landlord. POINT NO.II: 13. I, therefore, hold that the landlord is entitled to seek for eviction of the tenant from the property on the ground of owner’s occupation. Accordingly, Point No. I is answered in favour of the landlord. POINT NO.II: 13. In conclusion, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 17.08.2006, passed in R.C.A.No.18 of 2005, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 27.04.2005, passed in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2001, on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, are confirmed. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.