Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
S.Girija – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. T.Masthanamma – Respondent
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 56 of 2021 And C.M.P.No. 385 of 2021
Decided on : 03-06-2021
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 – Sections 25, 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(1), 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii) - tenant was in possession as a tenant - extension of the lease - Whether the lease was for residential or non-residential purpose - Whether there were other premises owned by the landlord - Respondent/tenant was in possession as a tenant on a monthly rent tenanted portion had been let out for carrying business in the nature of Xerox, Job Typing (Computer & Manual) and Stationeries in the name of “Karthik Xerox”. It had been stated that at a time of inception of tenancy, a sum obeen paid towards security deposit - Time of extension of the lease, the respondent/tenant requested to adjust security deposit towards the monthly rent - It had been claimed that after such adjustment rents again became due and since there was default in the payment of rent, eviction was sought on the ground of wilfull default in the payment of rent - tenant can carry on business for purpose of Xerox copying and typing but the tenant was actually carrying on the business of Ice Cream, Fresh Fruit Juice by using Wet mixes – Held, Learned Rent Controller and also by Rent Control Appellate respondent/tenant had not given any positive evidence with respect to the fact that the requirement is not bonafide - On the other hand, RW-1 had admitted during his cross examination that the landlord's son is not doing any work but doing some business – Court concur with the finding of both the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority that PW-1 is a competent person to tender evidence on behalf of the petitioner/landlord on basis of Ex.P-1/authorisation letter - He steps into the shoes of the landlord. He is not a power of attorney agent - Relationship is totally different - Premises is required for his occupation - It had been admitted by RW-1 that PW-1 is not doing any work but doing only business and that he had stated that he requires the premise for running real estate business - It had also been stated that there are no other premises wherein ground floor portion can be sought for this purpose - respondent/tenant however pointed out that two other portions had been vacated and subsequently, petitioner/landlord had let them out for running a Coffee Shop and therefore claimed that there was no bona fide on requirement of the petitioner/landlord - It cannot lie in the mouth of respondent/tenant to dictate as to which portion petitioner/landlord should use and put for business purpose – Court hold that the finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that eviction is to be directed on the ground of bona fide occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act will have to be confirmed and eviction is directed on that particular ground - Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed
ORDER :
This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, by the tenant in Shop No.1 with plinth area of 283 sq.ft., or thereabout at Old No. 44/2, New No.38/2, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017, questioning the order and decreetal order dated 29.01.2020 in R.C.A.No. 75 of 2017 by the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai/ Rent Controller Appellate Authority, who confirmed the order dated 07.11.2016 in R.C.O.P.No. 1451 of 2012 by the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai/ Rent Controller.
2. R.C.O.P.No. 1451 of 2012 had been filed by the landlady T.Masthanamma against the tenant S.Girija taking advantage of Sections 10(2)(1), 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii) and Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of willful default in the payment of rent, that the tenant had used the portion for purpose other than for which it was leased, for committing acts of waste and for bona fide use and occupation.
3. In the petition, it had been stated that the respondent/tenant was in possession as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.6,300/- and the tenanted portion had been let out for carrying business in the nature of Xerox, Job Typing (Computer & Manual) and Stationeries in the name of “Karthik Xerox”. It had been stated that at a time of inception of the tenancy, a sum of Rs.50,000/- had been paid towards security deposit. At the time of extension of the lease, the respondent/tenant requested to adjust the security deposit towards the monthly rent from December 2006. It had been claimed that after such adjustment, the rents again became due from August 2007 and since there was default in the payment of rent, eviction was sought on the ground of wilfull default in the payment of rent.
4. It had also been stated that in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant can carry on business for the purpose of Xerox copying and typing but the tenant was actually carrying on the business of Ice Cream, Fresh Fruit Juice by using Wet mixes, Chocolates and recharge Coupons for mobile phones. It was also claimed that the respondent/tenant was also selling Non-judicial Stamps as a Licensed Vendor. It was therefore stated that the respondent/tenant was liable to be evicted on the ground of using the property to use other than for the purpose for which it was let out.
5. It was also stated that the respondent/tenant had carried out construction activities by putting walls at the Southern and Eastern side of the petition premises and extended the roof top Asbestos Sheet abutting the Main Road. This construction had also weakened the existing main wall of the shop. It was therefore stated that the respondent/tenant was also liable to be evicted on the ground of committing acts of waste.
6. It was further stated that the petitioner/landlady was in need of the petition premises for the bona fide requirement of her own son's use and occupation to locate their business in the nature of finance, real estate and other businesses. It had been stated that the son does not have any other employment. It had been stated that at the time of extension of lease, this aspect was stated to the respondent/tenant and it was only because of that, adjustment of security deposit was sought. It had been stated that the inconvenience caused to the respondent in vacating and handing over the vacant possession would not out weigh the inconvenience of the petitioner for locating the finance, real estate and other businesses of her son T.Ashok Kumar who is now carrying on the same business in his house. It had been further stated that she is not occupying any other non residential building in the Ground Floor. It had been further stated that she had also issued notice on 20.06.2008 and thereafter the respondent/tenant took time to vacate.
7. The petitioner initially filed R.C.O.P.No. 2049 of 2008 on the file of XV Small Cause Court, Chen
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
