Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2491
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. PALANIVELU
R.S. Rajagopal Chettiyar (Deceased) & Others
Versus
K. Saraswathy
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2314 of 2009 & M.P.No.2 of 2009
Decided On : 28-06-2010
For the Petitioners:N. Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Lakshminarayanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Senthil Nathan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a bona fide need for the demised premises and the limitations of the High Court's revisional powers.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1960 - Eviction petition - Bona fide requirement of demised premises for running business - Misquotation of legal provision - Revisional powers of High Court - Dispossession of tenant - Allegations of fraud on the court - Enquiry into the conduct of the Judge
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition stating the bona fide requirement of the demised premises for her husband's business. The tenant contested the petition, alleging lack of bona fide requirement and misquotation of the legal provision. After the dismissal of the appeal, the landlord obtained possession of the premises, leading to allegations of fraud on the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord's requirement for the demised premises was bona fide and that the misquotation of the legal provision did not disentitle the landlord from relief. The court also held that the High Court's revisional powers did not warrant interference unless there was perversity in the lower court's findings. The court directed an enquiry into the conduct of the Judge who passed the orders for possession.
Issues: The issues involved the bona fide requirement of the demised premises, misquotation of legal provisions, and allegations of fraud on the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding of the landlord's bona fide requirement, the interpretation of misquotation of legal provisions, and the limitations of the High Court's revisional powers. The court also emphasized the need for an enquiry into the conduct of the Judge.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and an enquiry was directed into the conduct of the Judge who passed the orders for possession.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2009 passed by the learned Appellate authority (the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras) in R.C.A.No.958 of 2006 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller (the X Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras) passed in R.C.O.P.No.2390 of 2005.
2. In the petition filed by the landlord, it is stated as follows:-
2.1. The petitioner / landlord is the absolute owner of the property in question. The said property was purchased from one Rajammal by a registered sale deed dated 05.07.1996. Originally, the respondent is a tenant under the said Rajammal, who is the vendor of the petitioner and the respondent was carrying on business under the name and style of “Chenbagambigal Coffee” in the petition premises. After the date of purchase, her vendor, the said Rajammal attorned the tenancy of the respondent herein in favour of the petitioner.
2.2. The petitioner further would submit that before the purchase of the petition premises, her vendor Rajammal filed a petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1990 (for short the Act) in R.C.O.P.No.2645 of 1992 on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai against the respondent. While so, the respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.1023 of 1997 before the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai, for the deposit of rent and the same was dismissed on 21.07.1998. In the meanwhile, a suit in O.S.No.7749 of 1997 came to be filed by the respondent against the petitioner and the said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent.
2.3. The petitioners husband is carrying on business in rented premises under the name of “Mangalam Gold Mart” at Chennai under Sri.Natwarlalji Trust, that she does not have any other property other than the petition premises and that the petition premises occupied by the respondent is required for carrying on her husbands business. Hence, eviction may be ordered.
3. In the counter filed by the respondent / tenant, it is alleged as follows:-
3.1. The respondent / tenant states that he has been carrying on business in grinding coffee seeds and selling coffee powder in the petition premises for several decades. If the respondents husband shifts his business from the petition premises, it would definitely suffer severe loss. There is no bona fide in the plea made by the petitioner and that the petition is not maintainable under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.
4. The learned X Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai, has allowed the said R.C.O.P.No.2390 of 2005 by observing that the landlord required the demised premises bona fide for running the business by her husband and allowed the eviction petition filed by her granting two months time for delivery of possession. Hence, the tenant, namely, the present petitioners preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.958 of 2006 on the file of VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The appellate authority, confirming the revisional order passed by the Rent Controller, directed the petitioners to vacate the premises and hand over the demised premises within one month from the date of its order, dated 19.06.2009. Hence, the revision petitioners have filed this revision.
5. After the dismissal of the rent control petition, the landlord levied execution proceedings before the X Small Causes Court in E.P.No.448 of 2006 for delivery of the demised premises and the same was pending. Since the petitioners obtained stay before the appellate authority, the execution petition was kept pending with continuous endorsements to the effect that stay granted by VII Small Causes Court was in force. Execution Petition was kept adjourned to 31.07.2009. The civil revision petition was presented in this Court on 31.07.2009. The landlord is stated
