High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
M/s. Gopinath Furnitures and Home Appliances & Others
Versus
S. Mohammed Zainuddin
CRP.NPD.No.753 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on: 08-04-2009
Revision Petition - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) - The court discussed the landlord's requirement for the premises for his daughter's clinical laboratory and the tenant's default in rent payment. The court analyzed the landlord's claim for eviction and the tenant's request to adjust arrears of rent with the advance amount. The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the finding under Section 10(2)(i) and confirming the finding under Section 10(3)(a)(iii).
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the tenant to combine the shop portions for his daughter's clinical laboratory. The tenant resisted, claiming the landlord had no right to eviction and that the arrears of rent should be adjusted with the advance amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the finding under Section 10(2)(i) and confirming the finding under Section 10(3)(a)(iii). The tenant's request to adjust arrears of rent with the advance amount was upheld.
Issues: The main issues were the landlord's entitlement to eviction and the tenant's request to adjust arrears of rent with the advance amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant was entitled to adjust arrears of rent with the advance amount under Section 7(2) of the Act, and the landlord's claim for eviction was set aside.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the finding under Section 10(2)(i) and confirming the finding under Section 10(3)(a)(iii). The tenant's request to adjust arrears of rent with the advance amount was upheld.
1. This revision petition has been directed against the Judgment in RCA.No.1103 of 2003 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which had arisen out of an order passed in RCOP.No.945 of 2001 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. RCOP.No.945 of 2001 was filed by the landlord under Sections 10(2) (1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as Act).
2. The brief facts stated in the rent control original petition relevant for the purpose of deciding this Civil Revision Petition runs as follows:-
2(a) The petitioner is the landlord of the premises bearing New Door No.32, (Old Door No.25), Royapettah High Road, Royapettah, Chennai in which the respondent is a tenant of a shop measuring an area of 655 sq.ft. In the name and style of M/s. Gopinath Furnitures and Home Appliances for a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-inclusive of charges for amenities and exclusive of electricity consumption of charges and the tenancy is according to the English Calendar month and the rent is payable on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The agreement of tenancy was periodically renewed at every 11th month, the last of such renewal was on 1st April 2000 for a period of 11 months which expired on 1st march 2001.
2(b) The petitioners daughter A. Malika Jain has completed her M.sc. (Bio-chemistry) and is desirous of starting a clinical laboratory in the above said premises. The shop portion adjacent to the respondents shop measuring an extent of 256 sq.ft is occupied by the petitioner and the one next to that measuring an extent of 100 sq.ft is occupied by another tenant M/s. Justin Foam House. There is an intervening staircase between the petitioners shop and M/s. Justin Foam House. Hence, the petitioner cannot make use of this portion. A space not less than 600 to 800 sq.ft would be required to set up a clinical laboratory. Hence, he has no other alternative except to combine his shop portion along with the shop portion rented out to the respondent and for this purpose it is necessary for the respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the shop in his occupation. Starting of the clinical laboratory in the petition scheduled premises would be immensely helpful to the people of the locality and more so as the petitioners daughter proposes to carry on some research also in the field of Bio-Chemistry and she is further desirous of rendering free service to the deserving poor. The respondent is a chronic defaulter in payment of the monthly rent. The respondent has committed willful default in payment of rent from the month of August 2000 to May 2001. The petitioner has issued notice to the respondent on 14. 2001 demanding the respondent to vacate and handover vacant possession since he has committed willful default in payment of the rent. Inspite of the said notice, the respondent/tenant is continuing in making default in payment of rent. No receipts were issued for the rent paid by the tenant for the months from August 2000 to May 2001 because the tenant has not paid the rent for six months. The respondent is having three shops buildings in Gowdiya Mutt Road, Royapettah apart from the properties in Madipakkam, Balaji Nagar etc., The respondent is having alternative accommodation to run is business, whereas the petitioner has no other alternative except to vacate the premises in the occupation of the respondent in order to set up the clinical laboratory for his daughter. The respondent has committed willful default in payment of rent for the months from August 2000 to May 2001. The petitioner requires the petition scheduled building for bonafide requirement. The respondent has filed O.S.No.2189 of 2001 before the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, falsely alleging that the petitioner is trying to forcibly evict the respondent from the premises and has obtained an exparte order of ad-interim injunction against the petitio
7. Thirunavukkarasu Vs. Vasantha Ammal 1997(2) LW 607
10. K. Selvaraj Vs. J. Narayanan and another 2008(2) CTC 375
1. Sheodan Singh Vs. Daryao Kunwar AIR 1966 SC 1332
4. V.S.S. Velayutham Vs. K.Palanichamy 1988(1)LW 249
9. R. Murugan Vs. M.O.M. Abubucker 2005(5) CTC 473
11. S. Gopal and another Vs. T.V. Paramasivam 2008(2) CTC 400
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.