Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. Velumani, J.
S. Natarajan - Petitioner
Versus
P.Sukumar and ors. – Respondent
C.R.P.(NPD)No.4625 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
Decided On : 22-10-2021
.Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Section 10 (2)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) - Rent – Eviction - Petitioner is respondent in R.C.O.P. on file of Principal District, Rent Controller - 1st respondent filed said R.C.O.P. for eviction of petitioner and 2nd respondent/wife of petitioner, on ground of willful default and owner's occupation - According to respondent, originally, one was owner of petition premises - He leased out the petition premises to petitioner for non-residential purposes - Petitioner and respondent were carrying on Gunny Bag business - Said sold petition property by a deed of sale to respondent - According to respondent, he met petitioner and 2nd respondent itself and informed them about purchase of petition premises by respondent and requested them to vacate petition premises and till that time, to pay rent to the 1st respondent - 2nd respondent filed suit in O.S. for specific performance of agreement of sale and for permanent injunction, contending that said one entered into an agreement of sale - Whether respondent has deposited advance amount as directed by the Trial Court in O.S. – Held, learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority considered the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and held that requirement of the petition premises by respondent, for his Silver Articles business is bonafide - Courts below also rightly held that it is for the landlord to decide which premises is suitable for him to do business and it is not for the tenant to dictate which premises will be suitable for landlord's business - In view of facts, judgments relied on by learned counsel appearing for petitioner do not advance the case of petitioner - Contention of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner that respondent could have adjusted rent payable by respondent from and out of sum or interest payable for said amount and there is no default much less willful default in payment of rent, is without merits - Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent submitted that respondent has deposited a sum as directed by Trial Court to credit of O.S. and the said contention was not disputed by learned counsel appearing for petitioner - There is no error or irregularity in the order and judgment of learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority respectively, warranting interference by this Court - In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed - Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
ORDER :
(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.02.2015 made in R.C.A.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem (Rent Control Appellate Authority), confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 22.09.2014 made in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem (Rent Controller).
2. The petitioner is 1st respondent in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem (Rent Controller). The 1st respondent filed the said R.C.O.P. for eviction of the petitioner and 2nd respondent/wife of the petitioner, on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation. According to the 1st respondent, originally, one Karuppanna Pillai was owner of petition premises. He leased out the petition premises to the petitioner for non-residential purposes. The petitioner and 2nd respondent were carrying on Gunny Bag business. The said Karuppanna Pillai sold the petition property by a deed of sale dated 06.08.1999 to the 1st respondent. According to the 1st respondent, he met the petitioner and 2nd respondent in August, 1999 itself and informed them about the purchase of petition premises by the 1st respondent and requested them to vacate the petition premises and till that time, to pay the rent to the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent filed suit in O.S.No.368 of 1999, for specific performance of agreement of sale and for permanent injunction, contending that the said Karuppanna Pillai entered into an agreement of sale. After contest, the said suit was dismissed on merits by the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2006, with regard to relief of specific performance and refund of advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- only was ordered. The petitioner has not paid monthly rent of Rs.700/- to the 1st respondent from the date of purchase i.e., on 06.08.1999, even after dismissal of First Appeal by the Principal District Judge, Salem in A.S.No.74 of 2006 on 25.06.2007 and dismissal of Second Appeal in S.A.No.1260 of 2007 by this Court on 26.08.2011.The petitioner deliberately committed wilful default in payment of rent.
2(i) Further, the 1st respondent, along with his mother and brother viz., Mohanraj, was carrying on Silver Articles business in a rented building at D.No.172, Shevapet Main Road Shevapet, Salem -2 and the 1st respondent is not owning any non-residential building in Salem or elsewhere. The petition premises is required for his own Silver Articles business. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent issued notice dated 13.01.2012 to the petitioner and 2nd respondent, through his Advocate. The 2nd respondent alone sent a reply dated 03.02.2012. The petitioner did not send any reply or vacate the petition premises. Hence, the 1st respondent filed the said R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012, for eviction of the petitioner and 2nd respondent on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation.
3. The petitioner filed counter statement, which was adopted by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has denied that they committed wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner stated in the counter statement that he was paying the rent to Karuppanna Pillai, pending suit and subsequently to his sons. The Second Appeal filed by the 2nd respondent was dismissed by this Court only on 26.08.2011. Till such dismissal, there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the 1st respondent and petitioner. The 2nd respondent agreed to purchase the petition premises from Karuppanna Pillai and entered into an agreement. She was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the sons of the Karuppanna Pillai coerced Karuppanna Pillai to execute the sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent. The petitioner is running Gunny Bag business at petition premises in Leigh Bazaar, Salem. In that place only, the grains and Gunny Bag business is carried on. The said place and the petition premises are not suitable f
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
