C.R.P. (MD) No. 2093 of 2013 (NPD) and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 of 2013 & 1 of 2014. Case: C. Jebaraj Mani Vs Rajkumar Gnanamuthu. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | C.R.P. (MD) No. 2093 of 2013 (NPD) and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 of 2013 & 1 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S. Meenakshi Sundaram, Adv. and For Respondents: G. Prabhu Rajadurai, Adv. |
| Judges | V.M. Velumani, J. |
| Issue | Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Sections 10(3)(a)(iii), 10(3)(c), 21 |
| Judgement Date | October 10, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
V.M. Velumani, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.09.2013, passed in R.C.A. No. 5 of 2013 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Court), Tirunelveli, by confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 06.12.2012, passed in R.C.O.P. No. 18 of 2011 by the First Additional Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif Court), Tirunelveli.
2. The petitioner is the tenant, whereas the respondent is the landlord. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 18 of 2011 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif Court), Tirunelveli, for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act 1960 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] on the ground of additional accommodation.
3. The learned Rent Controller allowed the R.C.O.P., ordering eviction of the petitioner. Against the order of eviction, the petitioner has filed R.C.A. No. 5 of 2013 on the file of learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Court), Tirunelveli. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, dismissed the R.C.A. on 20.09.2013, confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller. As against the orders of the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 18 of 2011.
5. The case of the petitioner/landlord:
(i) The petitioner and his wife both are Doctors. The petitioner is running a Dental Clinic in the premises from 1988. The said premises is very old and the petitioner wants to extend his clinic and the present premises is not sufficient to give proper treatment to the patients. The petitioner is in possession of the building except the portion under occupation of the respondent.
(ii) The respondent is a tenant of the petitioner in respect of the shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-, as per English Calendar. On 15.03.2010, a rental agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the petition premises. This agreement is for eleven months from 15.03.2010 to 14.02.2011. The petitioner, by the notice, dated 20.09.2010, called upon the respondent to vacate and hand over possession of the petition premises, as the same is required for his own use. The respondent received the said notice, but did not sent any reply. On the other hand, he filed O.S. No. 124 of 2011 and prayed that the petitioner should not evict him except due process of law.
(iii) The petitioner requires the premises for his own use for extending Dental Clinic, construct residential quarters for his staff and lay a road to his new house, which he is constructing. The petitioner has sufficient means to put up the construction. The respondent in his counter denied all the contentions of the petitioner. The respondent became a tenant in the year 1975 under the petitioner's mother. Initially, a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- was paid for running a provision store and chicken stall. The respondent/tenant is now paying Rs. 1,000/- per month as rent.
(iv) On 05.02.2011, the respondent has paid the rent of Rs. 1,000/- for the month of January 2011. The petitioner/landlord took the rent note book and informed the respondent/tenant that he would sign and return it later. Suddenly, the petitioner/landlord informed the respondent/tenant on 10.02.2011 that the rental agreement expires on 14.02.2011 and he must vacate and give vacant possession immediately. The respondent/tenant refused to vacate the petition premises, as he is paying rent regularly and has invested huge amounts and therefore, he cannot vacate the premises. On 26.02.2011, the respondent/tenant met the petitioner/landlord and requested him to return the rent note book. The petitioner threatened the respondent to vacate and deliver vacant possession of petition premises, otherwise, he would implicate the respondent in a false case. The petitioner has filed Caveat in the District Munsif Court and Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. The petitioner was threatening the respondent through his Goondas. In those circumstances, the respondent filed O.S. No. 124 of 2011 on the file of First Additional District Munsif Court, praying that the petitioner should not evict him except by due process of law. After filing of the suit only, the petitioner has filed R.C.O.P. for eviction on false grounds.
(v) From the income derived from the shop run by the respondent in the petition premises, the respondent is maintaining himself and his family members. He has sold goods on credit basis. If he has to vacate immediately, he will not be in a position to recover the amounts. He and his family members will be thrown to the street.
(vi) On the pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed necessary points for consideration. The petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and one Noyel Gnanamuthu was examined as P.W. 2 and Exs. A1 to A7 were marked. The respondent examined himself as R.W. 1 and Exs. B1 to B7 were marked.
(vii) The learned Rent Controller considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Judgments relied on by the parties and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, by the order, dated 06.12.2012, allowed the R.C.O.P. ordered eviction of the respondent from the petition premises.
(viii) The respondent filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 5 of 2013 on the file of Rent...
To continue reading
Request your trial