Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Mad) 5280

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU
M.S.Jawahar
Versus
R.Padmavathy
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3060 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 04-12-2009

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner:Mr.N.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.A.Suresh, Advocate.
For Respondent:Mr.S.Raghavan, Advocate.

Ratios:
a. When the property was leased out only for doing a particular business, commencing entirely new business would be a ground for eviction of the tenant.
b. Commencement of a business by a third party in the leased out premises along with the business of the tenant would amount to sub-letting.

Headnote:(A)Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent control) Act 1960(T.N. Act 18 of 1960)-Sec.10(2)(ii)-Rent control-Eviction-Change of business-Sub-letting-Land lord-Permission-Petitioner took a shop from the respondent on rent for doing business in fancy and gift items-Later, he began the business of selling books-He also allowed another to have STD booth in the shop-Landlady sought for eviction on the ground of unauthorised change of user and sub-letting-Petitioner contended that the landlady consented for the new business and the telephone line was of his friend and temporarily put up in his shop-Respondent denied permission for change of business-Trial Court ordered eviction which was confirmed by the appellate Court-Revision filed by the tenant-Parties stood by their stands-Held, the tenant can do any ancillary business without the permission of the landlord and not a new business-Installation of STD booth of another reveal subletting-In the absence of permission of the landlord, both are unauthorized and the order of eviction passed by the rent controller confirmed.
        (B)Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent control) Act 1960(T.N. Act 18 of 1960)-Sec.10(2) (ii)-Rent control-Eviction-Change of business-Land lord-Permission-When the property was leased out only for doing a particular business, commencing entirely new business would be a ground for eviction of the tenant.
        When the intention of the parties gathered from the lease agreement goes to the effect that there must be no other business excepting a specific business, it has to be held that the demised premises has been utilised for different user which would call for eviction as per the provisions of the Act.
       Para 13
        (C)Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent control) Act 1960(T.N. Act 18 of 1960)-Sec.10(2) (ii)-Rent control-Eviction-Sub-letting-Joint possession-Land lord-Permission-Commencement of a business by a third party in the leased out premises along with the business of the tenant would amount to sub-letting.
        When a person other than the tenant has entered into the demised premises without the knowledge of a landlady, then it has to be construed that the tenant could be brought within the purview of Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act. The tenant has also not stated in his evidence that for shifting of the telephone booth by Prabakar, he (tenant) got permission of the landlady. In the absence of any knowledge on the part of the landlady, it has to be necessarily held that element of subletting is there which would disentitle the tenant to continue in the tenanted premises. Para 16

Judgment

This petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent control) Act 1960 as amended Act XXIII of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the order and decreetal order of the learned Judge VII Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.A.No.168 of 2006 dated 07.07.2009 confirming the order and decreetal order of the learned Judge X Small causes court at Chennai at R.C.O.P.No.1092 of 2005, dated 212. 2005.

2. In the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) & 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease & Rent control) Act 1960 are as follows:-

2.(i) The petitioner is the owner of the premises in the ground floor in door No.23, Old No.11, Bharathi Salai (formerly known as Pycrofts Road) Triplicane, Chennai. The said shop was let out by this petitioner to the respondent only for doing business in fancy and gift items under the name and style of “Vijay Gift Paradise” and the tenant is not entitled to do any business without her consent. The terms of tenancy are governed by the agreement, dated 20.01.1994 and the rent payable by the respondent is Rs.1,650/-per month and the mode of payment is by account payee cheque.

2.(ii) While so, contrary to the rental agreement, the respondent discontinued the business of fancy and gift items, but he had put up the name board “Vijay Book Store” in February,2005. Only then, the petitioner came to know of the business started by the respondent in sale of books. The conversion by the respondent of his business and use of the shop for a purpose other than that for which it was leased is unauthorised and without the written consent of the petitioner and as such, the respondent is liable to be evicted from the shop.

2.(iii) Apart from that, the respondent has also installed or permitted a third party to run a STD and ISD booth of TATA INDICOM bearing phone No.55533763 without her written consent or permission. In spite of her requests, the respondent refused to divulge the name of the person who is carrying on STD and ISD telecom business in the shop. The rental agreement prohibits such subletting. The said act on the part of the respondent is unauthorised and he is liable to be evicted from the shop.

2.(iv) When the matter stood thus, on 05.03.2005, the petitioner issued a Lawyers notice to the respondent to vacate the shop and deliver the possession thereof. But, on 19.03.2005, with false and untenable grounds, he sent a reply notice and a rejoinder notice was also issued by this petitioner on 24.03.2005. Hence, eviction order may be passed against the respondent.

3. In the counter filed by the respondent (tenant), the following allegations are found:-

3. 1. It is denied that the petitioner does not know about the business of the respondent since the book shop is being run by the tenant with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner for the past three years. He did not put up the board as “Vijay Book Centre”, but for more than three years it is there, that there is no telephone connection in the premises of the shop and that when this respondent failed to comply with the demand for enhancement of the rent to Rs.2,500/- per month, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by untenable claims to get an order of eviction by hook or crook and hence, the eviction petition may be dismissed.

4. The learned Rent Controller after scrutiny of the evidence and materials on record found bona fide intention in the land lady and passed an eviction order on 212. 2005, granting two months time to vacate. This appellant carried the matter in R.C.A.No.168 of 2006 on the file of the VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai and the same suffered dismissal on 07.07.2009 after grant of one month for delivery. Hence, this petitioner is before this Court.

5. It is the version of the landlady that from February,2005 onwards, the tenant has been running a book shop under the name and style of the above-said book store. It is stated by the tenant that with the consent an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(Mad) 5280

High Court of Judicature at Madras THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU M.S.Jawahar Versus R.Padmavathy C.R.P.(NPD)No.3060 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 Decided on : 04-12-2009

Ratios:a. When the property was leased out only for doing a particular business, commencing entirely new business would be a ground for eviction of the tenant.b. Commencement of a business by a third party in the leased out premises along with the business of the tenant would amount to sub-letting.

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU
M.S.Jawahar
Versus
R.Padmavathy
C.R.P.(NPD)No.3060 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 04-12-2009