IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.Bakthavatsalu, J.
S.Loganathan
Versus
V.S.Rangasamy
C.R.P.No.710 of 2001 and C.M.P.No.3803 of 2001
Decided On : 13 September 2001
2. The case of the landlord/ petitioner is as follows:
The first respondent in the O.P. has taken on lease the petition mentioned property on 1.4.1989 for running business on a monthly rent of Rs.1,200. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs.2,000 and now the monthly rent is Rs.2,000 payable on the first of every English Calendar month. The tenant and the landlord entered into a lease deed on 1.4.1989, 6.3.1990 and 27.8.1992. The second respondent in the O.P. is the sub-tenant under the first respondent. Originally the first respondent was doing lottery agency business in the petition mentioned property under the name and style of “Kalaimani Lottery Agency” and subsequently, in the year 1990, he changed the name and style of business and doing business under the name and style of “Suriya Lottery Agency”. After 27.8.1992, the first respondent closed his lottery business and is doing bakery business in the petition mentioned property under the name and style of “Indu Biscuit Bakery”. After the expiry of the said lease period, the first respondent continued under the same terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 27.8.1992 for running the same business. The first respondent failed to pay rent for the month of April, May and June, 1998. The arrears of rent is Rs.6,000. In spite of repeating demands the fist respondent has not paid the rent. The default committed by the first respondent is wilful and supine indifferences. The first respondent without the oral consent of the landlords has sub-let a portion of the building to the second respondent and he is doing Audio Cassette business under the name and style of “Roja Audio Centre”. The second respondent is also running a tea shop in the petition mentioned property without the written consent of the petitioner. The first respondent having taken the building for doing bakery business is now using the building for different purpose. The first respondent is running a Cool Drink stall in the petition mentioned property without the oral and written consent of the landlord. The petitioner is also carrying on gingelly oil business. He is manufacturing gingelly oil and the trade mark of this oil is “Gandhimathi Mark Gingelly Oil”. He is manufacturing and doing wholesale business at park Road, Erode. The building at Park Road, Erode is lacking in accommodation to accommodate the petitioner for retail oil business. In view of the lack of accommodation, the petitioner is not able to expand the retail oil business. Therefore, the petitioner requires the petition mentioned property for personal use and occupation. The petitioner requires the building for bona fide requirement for his personal occupation to carry on oil business in retail. The petitioner requested the first respondent to surrender possession of the building for his own occupation. As the respondent refused to vacate the building, this petition is filed for eviction.
3. The case of the first respondent is follows:
The respondent has not committed any wilful default as alleged by the petitioner. He was paying the rent regularly and obtaining receipts. The receipts are issued by the clerk of the petitioner. In the month of April, 1998, the said clerk did not come and receive the rent. Subsequently, the respondent has sent the rent by money order on 6.6.1998 for the month of April and May, 1998, which was refused. After such refusal, the respondent has been paying the rent directly to the petitioner’s counsel. After such refusal, the respondent has been paying the rent directly to the petitioner’s counsel. Therefore, the respondent has not committed any wilful default. The lease deed was entered into between the petitioner and this respondent on 27.8.1992. On the expiry of the said lease term, the petitioner and the respondent entered into an oral lease, as per which the monthly rent wa
Solai Nadar v. A. T. A. V. Guruswami Nadar and Co. : [1969] 1 M.L.J. 629
Syed Maqbul v. Thangavel Chettiar : [2000] 2 M.L.J. 217
Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1841
A. Gurusami v. Dr. (Mrs. ) A. Jacob (died) [1998] 2 C.T.C. 563 : [1998] 2 M.L.J. 544
Buhari Hotels and Hotels Private Limited v. Dr. L. Murugan [2000] 4 C.T.C. 678
Rookshana Nazir v. U. M. D. Shaukathulla [1998] 3 C.T.C. 687
Dr. Senthilnathan v. Rajalakshmi : [2000] 3 M.L.J. 40
Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh [1999] 7 S.C.C. 263
South India Corporation Agencies Limited v. Chandrakanth C. Badani [1998] 1 C.T.C. 674
Hasmat Bai v. Raghunath Prasad [1981] 3 S.C.C. 103
T. Sivasubramanian v. Kasinatha Pujari [1999] 7 S.C.C. 275
V. D. Murugesan v. Raj Mohammed [1994] 2 L.W. 667
Malliga v. A. P. Kathija Beevi : [1998] 1 M.L.J. 302
B. M. A. Najira Gegum v. A. M. S. Kassim [2000] 4 C.T.C. 474
Lakshmidas Ved v. Parag Mawani : [2000] 2 M.L.J. 456
Pappathimall v. Nachammal [2001] 1 C.T.C. 160
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.