Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3464
2011 (3) MWN(Civil) 350
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
P. Mahendran
Versus
S. Jothilakshmi
C.R.P. (NPD).No.3111 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided on : 01-08-2011
For the Petitioner:R. Venkata Varathan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Karunakaran, Advocate.
Ratio
Multiple property tax assessment by the municipal authorities of a single building would not be a decisive factor to treat any single building as multiple premises to deny the landlord the relief of eviction of the tenant for her additional occupation.
Headnote:(A)Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960(18 of 1960)-Sec.10(3)(c)-Buildings-Lease and Rent Control-Eviction-Additional accommodation-Property tax-Assessment-Respondent landlady had sought for eviction of the tenant holding a premise by alleging that he had been in occupation of a small portion of the same building which was not sufficient for her and her son and sought to evict the tenant-Tenant contended that the premise under the occupation of both the parties were assessed to municipal tax separately and thus they were different premises and on the ground of need for additional accommodation, she could not be evicted-When the trial Court ordered eviction and was confirmed by the appellate authority, the tenant filed revision-Parties stood by their stands-Held, mere separate assessment by the municipal authorities would not be a decisive factor to treat any single building as multiple premise to deny the landlord the relief of eviction of the tenant for her additional occupation-As both portions had a single door number and the features also revealed that it was a single building, mere separate assessment for property tax would not be decisive and the requirement of the landlord was found as bone fide-Order of eviction was confirmed.
(B)Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960(18 of 1960)-Sec.10(3)(c)-Buildings-Lease and Rent Control-Eviction-Additional accommodation-Property tax-Assessment-Multiple property tax assessment by the municipal authorities of a single building would not be a decisive factor to treat any single building as multiple premises to deny the landlord the relief of eviction of the tenant for her additional occupation.
Applying the principles laid down by this Court, when we approach the present case, I could see that the premises occupied by the landlady and the premises in possession of the tenant are part and parcel of the same building and they are very adjacent and the landlady is the present owner of both the properties. All the above circumstances would strengthen the claim of the landlady seeking vacant possession of the demised premises in the occupation of the tenant towards additional accommodation. Para 18
1. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed in RCA.No.9 of 2009 and the fair and executable order passed in M.P.No.567 of 2009 dated 02.08.2010 in directing the eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground of requirement of premises under additional accommodation.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner / landlady before the Rent Controller are as follows:-
The petitioner purchased the petition premises from one Tmt.Vijaya Govindarajan on 09.02.2007 under registered sale deed along with the adjacent portion. The respondent was tenant under the erstwhile owner on a monthly rent of Rs.950/- excluding consumption charges for residential purpose. The petitioner and her vendor informed the respondent to vacate the petition premises on or before 31.01.2007. The respondent stated that he could vacate only in May 2007. He assured that he would pay monthly rent to the petitioner from the date of sale deed and would also vacate by end of May 2007. Thus, the respondent attorned tenancy orally to the petitioner. However, the respondent failed to pay monthly rent from 09.02.2007 to the petitioner in spite of repeated demands and notice dated 06.07.2007. Hence respondent committed default from 09.02.2007 to 08.07.2007 amounting to Rs.4,750/-. Further, the petitioner is living in the small portion adjacent to the petition premises which is insufficient for her family.
The petitioner's son requires separate room for studying. The petitioner's hardship is more than the hardship of the respondent, if eviction is not ordered. Further the respondent is having three dogs and they are barking loudly during night hours and disturbing other occupiers of the building and the neighbours and thereby causing nuisance. The respondent has not complied with the demands of legal notice dated 06.07.2007 and has not even replied. Hence, this petition.
3. The brief facts of the case of the respondent / tenant before the Rent Controller are as follows:
The respondent was a tenant of Tmt.Vijaya Govindarajan from 01.12.2003. Advance of Rs.8500/- has been paid to the landlady. The respondent did not receive any notice from his erstwhile landlady to vacate the petition premises. The respondent has paid monthly rent of Rs.850/- to the landlady till the date of counter and also received rental receipts. Tmt.Vijaya Govindarajan assured him that he need not vacate the premises and should pay the rent to her as usual. The landlady informed the respondent that she has filed complaint against the petitioner with the Assistant Commissioner of Police to revoke the sale agreement between herself and the petitioner, since the petitioner has not complied with the agreement. The respondent is living in the premises owned by Tmt.Vijaya Govindarajan. The petitioner is living adjacent to the premises. The respondent is having pet animals from the inception of tenancy and no one has complained about the same. The respondent has to receive the sum of Rs.8,500/-which is the advance paid by him. He has also spent Rs.3,600/- as electricity charges and Rs.3,000/- for repairs. Hence, the landlady has to settle Rs.15,000/- to terminate the tenancy. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed.
4. The brief facts averred in the additional counter of the respondent / tenant before the Rent Controller are as follows:
Many averments found in the main counter are reiterated. The respondent continued to pay monthly rent to erstwhile landlady Tmt.Vijaya Govindarajan, as he was not aware of the sale in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has given statement in writing before the Police Authorities admitting her liability for balance sale consideration to Tmt.Vijaya Govindarajan and the erstwhile landlady was allowed to continue collection of monthly rent from the respondent. When there has been claim for monthly rent from two persons, the respondent continued to pay the rent to his original landlady. Immediately, on the orders of this Court, the resp
