SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Mad) 1476

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
T.Sivakumar - Appellant
Versus
K.Prabhakaran - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 469 of 2003
Decided On : 17 November 2004

Advocates Appeared:For The Petitioner:V.Chandrakanthan, Advocate. For The Respondents:B.Tirupatikumar, Advocate.

The landlord's bona fide requirement for own use and occupation justifies eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

Headnote:

Eviction - Own Use and Occupation - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 10(3)(a)(iii), Section 10(5)(a)

Fact of the Case:

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a non-residential premises for own use and occupation by his son to start a Computer Centre. The tenant opposed the eviction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the landlord's son's bona fide requirement for the premises to start a Computer Centre was established, and the eviction was confirmed.

Issues: The main issue was the bona fide requirement of the premises for the landlord's son to start a Computer Centre.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord's steps towards starting the business and the sufficiency of the premises for the intended use justified the eviction.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was confirmed.

Judgment :-

The tenant is the revision petitioner and the revision is filed against the eviction ordered by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.2093 of 2000 and as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.410 of 2002 as per the judgment dated 31.12.2002 from the petition non-residential premises on the ground of own use and occupation by the son of the respondent/landlord.

2. The respondent/landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition non-residential premises bearing door No.1, Nagarathinammal Colony, Govindhan Road, West Mambalam, Chennai-33, which is a portion measuring an extent of 100 square feet in the ground floor on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and on which ground the learned Rent Controller refused to order eviction and which has been confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The other ground for eviction is that the petition non-residential premises is bona fide required for own use and occupation by landlord's eldest son, P.W.2, who is B.Sc.(Computer Science) Graduate and who stopped his employment after gaining experience and with a view to start a Computer Centre for his livelihood. It is also stated that the landlord already purchased Computers and all other accessories for running Computer Centre. The landlord is not owning any other building of his own except the petition shop. The petition was opposed by the tenant by filing counter.

3. The learned Rent Controller considering the evidence of P.W.1 and his eldest son P.W.2 and Exs.P-1 to P-6 marked on the side of the landlord and also the evidence of the tenant as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-9 marked on the side of the tenant, accepting the case of the landlord that the requirement of the petition shop is bona fide for own use and occupation by the landlord's son, P.W.2 for the purpose of starting Computer Centre and accordingly ordered eviction on that ground, negativing the case on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. On appeal filed by the tenant, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, appreciating the evidence adduced before the learned Rent Controller and also Ex.P-7, certificate issued to P.W.2 in respect of the Degree in B.Sc.(Computer Science) in the examination held in April, 2000 and also Exs.R-10 and R-11 filed on the side of the tenant before him, confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of own use and occupation by P.W.2, the son of the landlord and so, the tenant has come out with this revision to this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant argued that the requirement of the petition shop by the landlord for his eldest son P.W.2 is without bona fide. The learned counsel further contended that the petition shop being a small portion of about 100 square feet and inasmuch as the other shops in the same building owned by the landlord are of about 200 square feet, the requirement of the petition shop cannot be said to be bona fide. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the landlord failed to prove that such requirement is bona fide for his son P.W.2 for the purpose of starting Computer Centre. In this regard the learned counsel pointed out that in his letter Ex.R-2 dated 23.7.2000 sent by the landlord, such requirement of the petition shop for the purpose of starting a Computer Centre by P.W.2 is not mentioned and only in the lawyer notice Ex.P-3 dated 4.10.2000, it is so mentioned. Since P.W.2 is not carrying on business, according to the learned counsel, the eviction sought under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not maintainable. Further, according to the learned counsel, since the tenant is carrying on provision store in the petition shop, much hardship will be caused to the








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top