Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2736
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
K. Perumal
Versus
G. Subramania Pillai
C.R.P(MD)(PD)No. 1322 of 2014 & M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
Decided on: 25-08-2014
For the Petitioner:S.R. Anbarasu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N. Dilip Kumar, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the landlord's bona fide requirement for the non-residential building under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Tenant - R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2011, R.C.A.No.2 of 2013 - [Section 10(3)(a)(iii)] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the requirements of the landlord's bona fide need for the non-residential building under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act. The court referred to various judgments to establish the legal principles governing the landlord's entitlement to possession of the non-residential building for his own use and occupation. The court considered the landlord's profession, health condition, and proximity of the premises to his residence in determining the bona fide requirement.]
Fact of the Case:
The tenant, a manager of a tea shop business, was appointed by the landlord, who later filed for eviction on the ground of own use. The tenant denied the allegations and filed a complaint against the landlord. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction, and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The tenant filed a Civil Revision Petition against the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord's requirement for the non-residential building was bona fide, considering his profession, health condition, and proximity of the premises to his residence. The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the landlord's bona fide requirement for the non-residential building, the tenant's allegations, and the validity of the eviction orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in various judgments to determine the landlord's entitlement to possession of the non-residential building for his own use and occupation.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the tenant was granted three months to vacate the premises.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order, dated 10.01.2014 passed in R.C.A.No.2 of 2013 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Court (Sub Court, Valliyoor), Tirunelveli District, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2011 dated 13.02.2012 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Valliyoor.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondent.
3. The revision petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of the petition premises owned by the respondent. The petitioner and the respondent are referred to as tenant and landlord.
4. The landlord is the owner of the petition premises bearing Door No.406A-1, R.S.No.P7/110 in Nagercoil. He started one Tea shop business in the petition premises and the tenant was appointed as a Manager to conduct the said Tea shop business. The landlord is a practising advocate. He developed his professional practice and he has become busiest advocate. He is also a Notary Public. Therefore, he could not manage the Tea shop business. He left the business and handed over the business to the tenant in the month of January 2003. The tenant orally agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- as advance and Rs.750/-per month as rent. The rent was agreed to be paid as per Rent Control Act.
5. The tenant started hotel business in his own name and paid advance amount of Rs.5,000/-in instalments. The tenant agreed to pay the rent before 5th of every month, but became very irregular in paying the rent from 2004. For three years, the tenant did not pay the rent. The maintenance work was carried out in the said building by the landlord.
6. The landlord gradually improved his profession and he is now busiest advocate in Nagercoil. He is also a Notary Public. His wife is a licensed stamp vendor. The landlord is having his office in the District Court campus, which is a rented premises. His wife also require an office space to carry on her business. Under these circumstances, the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2011 for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the petition premises is required for his own use.
7. The tenant denied all the allegations made by the landlord. According to him, he is a tenant for 18 years. He was never a manager of landlord. He is having a residential building in a lane. The hotel business is his only source of income. Originally, the rent was Rs.300/- p.m. and it was gradually increased. Now, the rent is Rs.600/- p.m. He has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-to the landlord as advance. He has earned reputation for his hotel business. On 02.11.2006, the landlord came to the petition premises and demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-as additional deposit and enhanced the rent to Rs.1,100/- p.m. The tenant offered to pay the reasonable enhancement, but the landlord refused to receive Rs.600/-p.m. as rent. On 03.11.2006, the landlord came to the petition premises along with three other persons and threatened the tenant with dire consequences unless he vacates the petition premises.
8. The tenant gave a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station. He also filed O.S.No.618 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil and obtained interim injunction. As the landlord refused to accept the rent of Rs.600/- p.m., the tenant filed R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2006 before the District Munsif (Rent Controller), Nagercoil to deposit the rent into the Court. The Rent Controller allowed R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2006 on 07.12.2009. As per the orders of the Court, he is depositing the rent regularly. He denied the allegation that he was irregular in paying rent and stated that there is no default or no arrears.
9. The tenant has stated that the landlord is owner of other buildings in K.P.Road, Door Nos.25, 26, 28, 29 and 30. The tenant was in possession of Door No.26 till 30.07.2009, when the landlord took possession forcibly from him and vacated other tenants also and let out the buildings for higher rent and received huge amounts as
