Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 459 (MAD)

R. Jayakumar v. R. Ramanathan

2021-02-10

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

body2021
ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, praying for to set aside the order dated 09.11.2020 in M.P. No.229 of 2019 in R.C.A. No.369 of 2017 passed by the Hon'ble IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent being the landlord is the petitioner and the petitioner being tenant is the respondent in R.C.O.P. No.644 of 2016 on the file of the XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai which has been filed by the respondent-landlord to vacate the petitioner tenant from the petition premises as the additional accommodation is required by the respondent landlord being a Medical practitioner, for setting up a clinic and consulting room in the said petition premises. The Court below after considering bona-fide reasons of the respondent-landlord and the entire oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties, by order dated 05.04.2017 has allowed the aforesaid petition and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the petition premises. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant has filed the appeal in R.C.A. No.369 of 2017 on the file of the IX Small Causes Court, Chennai, seeking for to set aside the order dated 05.04.2017 passed by XI Small Causes Court Judge (Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P. No.644 of 2016. After filing of the written arguments in the aforesaid appeal by both parties, the appellant/petitioner-tenant has filed M.P. No.229 of 2019 to re-open the above RCA enabling to file additional evidence on the side of the appellant/petitioner herein. The same was dismissed by order dated 09.11.2020 as the appellant/petitioner failed to produce the evidence before the Court below as adduced by him. Against the aforesaid order, the appellant/petitioner herein has filed the present Civil Revision petition to set aside the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Judge failed to note that while the Photographs were produced before the Court below, it observed that the same may be filed along with negative. However, the petition was dismissed by order dated 09.11.2020 without giving any opportunity to the appellant/petitioner tenant to prove on his side. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Judge failed to note that while the Photographs were produced before the Court below, it observed that the same may be filed along with negative. However, the petition was dismissed by order dated 09.11.2020 without giving any opportunity to the appellant/petitioner tenant to prove on his side. It has been further submitted that the eviction order was passed by the Trial Court without taking into consideration of advantages and disadvantages on both sides while the appellant/petitioner is carrying on the business of provision from the year 2000 itself and taking care of the local residential people for so many years and there is another portion in the ground itself which fell vacant is not occupied by the respondent-landlord and the first floor is fully occupied by the respondent-landlord for the purpose of his profession. Having considered only the medical registration certificates of the respondent-landlord and his wife, the Trial Court has decided to vacate the petitioner-tenant from the petition premises by granting two months time. As there is no bonafide reason to be ordered to vacate the petitioner-tenant, the petitioner-tenant has filed the Appeal and after filing the written submission therein, the respondent-landlord has put up the To-let Board in the disputed premises to let out the same to others for which related photos of the same has been produced. It clearly proves that the additional accommodation required by the respondent-landlord is not bonafide reason and only a false requirement in order to evict the petitioner-tenant from the said premises and letting out the same to third party for huge rent. Hence, the petitioner-tenant has filed M.P.No.229 of 2019 before the Court below, to re-open the appeal enabling him to file additional evidence, in order to provide the evidence of malafide intention of the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant to vacate him. Without considering the aforesaid scenario, the Court below has dismissed the petition as there was no proper evidence to prove his averments. Hence, the Civil Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant to set aside the aforesaid order enabling him to provide evidence in order to prove the malafide intention of the respondent-landlord. 4. Without considering the aforesaid scenario, the Court below has dismissed the petition as there was no proper evidence to prove his averments. Hence, the Civil Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant to set aside the aforesaid order enabling him to provide evidence in order to prove the malafide intention of the respondent-landlord. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as the petitioner-tenant has not filed any proof to prove the malafide intention of the respondent-landlord along with the petition, the Court below has rightly dismissed the petition after hearing both sides and further held that the petitioner-tenant has filed the petition to drag on the proceedings. Further, As a residential portion in the rear block has fell vacant, the To- Let Board has been put up in the front side, having street view to attract those who are looking for residential accommodation and not for the disputed shop which has been occupied by the petitioner-tenant and it is in evidence recorded by the Trial Court that three rooms in the first floor and one small shop portion in the ground floor remains vacant for year together. Hence, the present petition is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent as well as perused the materials available on record. 6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that it is admitted fact that the respondent-landlord and his wife are the medical practitioners for which they have produced their medical registered certificates before the Trial Court and further the first floor of the said premises is occupied from the year 2012 for the purpose of clinic after vacating the tenants therein. It is to be considered that for the convenience of his patients, the respondent-landlord intends to commence a clinic and consulting room in the Ground floor as there are difficulties for his patients to climb in the first floor to have consultation with the respondent-landlord and in order to facilitate to his patients, the additional accommodation in the ground floor which is occupied by the petitioner-tenant is required for his profession as a consulting room and infant room. Having considered the bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlord and oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller has passed the order to vacate the petitioner-tenant by granting two months time. Having considered the bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlord and oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller has passed the order to vacate the petitioner-tenant by granting two months time. Further, the said portion was let-out to the petitioner-tenant for Rent of Rs.7,600/- by the respondent-landlord having received an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- from him under the capacity of tenant among other tenants, during the cross examination of the R.W.1, it is said to have stated that the petitioner-tenant alone is doing the business in the petition premises while other tenants including tenants of the small portion in the ground floor and the first floor have vacated their respective portion in the said premises as required by the respondent-landlord for having set up the clinic. Under such circumstances, without complying the said order, the petitioner herein has filed Appeal in RCA No.369 of 2017 before IXth Judge Small Causes, Chennai against the eviction order. While the appeal has been posted for Judgment after filing the written statement on either side, the petitioner has filed M.P. No.229 of 2019 on its file for re-opening the case in order to let-in additional evidence to prove the mala-fide intention of the respondent-landlord after having photos of To-let Board in the said premises. While the petitioner-tenant has not proved his contention that the respondent-landlord intends to let out the said premise to the third party for huge rent after vacating him and the said portion occupied by the petitioner-tenant is not used for the purpose of clinic as required by the respondent-landlord, the prayer of the petitioner-tenant is not able to consider in favour of him. Even though it has been stated that the To-let board was put up to let-in the particular portion occupied by the petitioner-tenant herein for which related photos have been produced covering the said shop, there is no proper evidence to prove it whether the To-let Board has been put up to let-in for the particular shop which is occupied by the petitioner-tenant herein since there is no specific information in the said To-let Board regarding which portion is to be let-out, or if there are any other portion in the said premises to be let out. Hence the claim of the petitioner-tenant is not accepted for consideration. Hence the claim of the petitioner-tenant is not accepted for consideration. While the requirement of the respondent-landlord is bona-fide, the petitioner-tenant has filed such petition, without any oral and documentary evidence to prove on his side, is not sustainable and liable to be dismissed and also to be considered to drag on the proceedings of eviction. 7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.