Eviction under landlord's claim of wilful default in rent payments is justified when adequate evidence supports the landlord's intention for personal use of the premises.

ORDER :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J

The petitioners/tenants filed this revision petition under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] challenging the order passed in RCOP. No.1582 of 2017 dated 16.03.2023 which was confirmed in RCA.No.65 of 2023 dated 20.09.2023.

2. The facts of the case is that the respondent/landlord filed a petition under Sections 10 (2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in RCOP. No.1582 of 2017 seeking to evict the petitioners/tenants on the ground of wilful default for owner's occupation. The petitioners, running a business in the name of M/s.J.S. Paradise Homes India Private Limited, entered into a rental agreement dated 20.01.2016 with the landlord for 11 months, the agreed rent payable is Rs.60,000/- per month and the advance amount is fixed at Rs.4,50,000/-. The condition agreed is that rent to be paid on or before 10^th of every English Calender month. The tenants defaulted in payment of monthly rent during September 2017 and October 2017. Further, the landlord required the portion; of the rented property for his own occupation to set up a hospital for his son M.B.Dinesh. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlord and his son examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 marked and on the side of the tenants, R.W1/Manager and Authorized Representative of the petitioners and R.W.2/Photographer examined and two documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 marked. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition and directed the tenants to evict the premises. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court.

3. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners/tenants never defaulted in payment of rents. In fact, the petitioners renovated the building with the consent of the landlord. He would submit that the respondent/landlord is having other property to a larger extent in Astalakshmi Nagar, Porur where a hospital can be constructed which would be more ideal, on the other hand, the tenants were occupying only 1500 sq.ft. and running a business were forced to evict on a false pretext. In the second floor, the landlord's wife is running a business in the name of Mithra's Bridal. Further, the tenant filed a petition in I.A.No.3 of 2023 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to prove that Mithra's Bridal is occupying one portion of the property but the same was dismissed. He would further submit that without giving sufficient time to prefer a revision, the Rent Control Court in a hurried manner passed the final order in RCOP. No.1582 of 2017. He further submitted that the Rent Control Court failed to consider the fact that the tenants paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the landlord as additional advance. There is no wilful default on the part of the tenants and as per the calculation of the landlord, the tenant is default to a sum of Rs.4,20,000/-, admittedly an advance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- is lying in the hands of the landlord including the additional advance of Rs.1,50,000/- and hence, there is no default on the side of the tenant. He would further submit that the entire area available in Saligramam is to the extent of 4275 sq.ft., with this limited area never a Multi Speciality Hospital can be constructed as projected by the landlord. Further, no document produced to show that steps have been taken to construct a hospital in the said place. The tenants renovated the entire building with the consent