Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Kulasekar Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Mrs. T.Masthanamma - Respondent
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 86 of 2021 And C.M.P.No. 776 of 2021
Decided on : 03-06-2021
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 - Sections 25, 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(iii) - Default in the payment of rent - Seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful - 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 Photogrpahy, Video Coverage, Digital Mixing, VCD Conversion, NTC-PAL Conversion and such other allied items of the Photogrpahy only - It had been stated that at the time of inception of the tenancy, a sum had been paid towards security deposit - Time of extension of lease, respondent/tenant requested to adjust the 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 - Tenancy agreement, the tenant was permitted to carry on business for purpose of Photography, Video Coverage, Digital Mixing, VCD Conversion, NTCPAL Conversion and such other allied items of the Photography only, but tenant was actually carrying on the business as booking agent of AP Tourism Development Corporation – Held, PW-1 during his cross examination was questioned on all aspects relating to requirement of the premises for bona fide use and occupation - He was cross examined whether there were other premises owned by the landlord - He admitted that there were other premises but stated that this is only premises which is in the ground floor and can be put for business use - correctly held by the 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 finding of both the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority that PW-1 is a competent person to tender evidence on behalf of petitioner/landlord on the 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. The 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 the ground floor portion can be sought for this purpose - petitioner/landlord had let them out for running a Coffee Shop and therefore claimed that there was no bona fide on the requirement of the petitioner/landlord. It cannot lie in the mouth of the respondent/tenant to dictate as to which portion petitioner/landlord should use and put for business purpose - I hold that the finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that eviction is to be directed on 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.2, situated 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. 27 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. 1449 of 2012 by the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai/Rent Controller.
2. R.C.O.P.No. 1449 of 2012 had been filed by the landlady T.Masthanamma against the tenant Kulasekar Kumar taking advantage of Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b), and Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default in the payment of rent, that the tenant had used the portion for purpose other than for which it was leased 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.17,000/- and the tenanted portion had been let out for carrying business in the nature of Photogrpahy, Video Coverage, Digital Mixing, VCD Conversion, NTC-PAL Conversion and such other allied items of the Photogrpahy only. It had been stated that at the time of inception of the tenancy, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) 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 was permitted to carry on business for the purpose of Photography, Video Coverage, Digital Mixing, VCD Conversion, NTCPAL Conversion and such other allied items of the Photography only, but the tenant was actually carrying on the business as booking agent of AP Tourism Development Corporation. It was therefore stated that the respondent/tenant was liable to be evicted on the ground of putting the property to use for other purpose than for which it was let out.
5. 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 own 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, the 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 his 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 and thereafter the respondent/tenant took time to vacate. The petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No. 2050 of 2008 on the file of XII Small Cause Court, Chennai. Trial commenced. The petitioner's another son T.S.Nagesh Kumar was examined as PW-1. It was thereafter posted for cross examination of PW-1. The respondent protracted the proceedings. PW-1 was not able to appear before the Court and therefore an application was filed to eschew the evidence. That application was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew R.C.O.P.No. 2050 of 2008 with liberty to file a fresh petition on the grounds of wilfull default and owners'
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
