COMMON ORDER

C.R.P.(PD) No.509 of 2019 was filed by tenant against the judgment passed in RCA No.669 of 2017 confirming the order passed in RCOP No.1602 of 2015 on the file of the XI Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. C.R.P.(PD) No.3744 of 2019 was filed by landlord against the judgment passed in RCA No.259 of 2015 reversing the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP No.595 of 2013 on the file of the XV Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

3. C.R.P.(PD) Nos.3747 and 3748 of 2019 have been filed by landlord against the judgments passed in RCA Nos.257 of 2015 and 258 of 2015 respectively reversing the order passed in RCOP No.2500 of 2012 on the file of the X Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

4. The landlord filed RCOP No.2500 of 2012 against the tenant under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act for fixing fair rent to the tenanted premises. The tenanted premises situate in Door No.9, Thiru.Vi.Ka Street, Otteri, Chennai. This premises was let out to the tenant for the purpose of running Thirumana Maligai for the benefit of members of their society, namely, Chennai Otteri Vattara Nadar Sangam. This premises situates in important location surrounded by marriage halls, cinema theatres, multi-storied buildings, churches, hotels, nursing homes, bus stops and other commercial establishments. The land value costs not less that Rs.80,00,000/- per ground. The present rent paid at Rs.21,000/- is very low compared to the market value of the rental value. The fair rent comes to Rs.98,400/- per month and therefore, this petition was filed. 5. The tenant denied the averments made in the petition. It is the case of the tenant that the rent was Rs.21,000/- per month till 2013 and from 2013 to 2016, the rent was fixed at Rs.23,000/-. The tenant is one of the members of the landlord Sangam. The building is surrounded by slum dwelling houses. The landlord is a charitable institution and the mandapam was constructed for the charitable purpose and therefore, the rent for the thirumana mandapam is very less than other mandapams located in the area. There is political influence and therefore, it is very hard to run the mandapam. The landlord has been instituting various proceedings before the Rent Controller and before Civil Court only to harass the tenant, with a view to evict him. It is claimed by the landlord that rent is fixed for the building and for vessels. Therefore, the Rent Control Court is not a competent court to entertain the RCOP Petition. The calculation given in the petition is inflated to make an artificial increase in the fair rent. There is no merits in the petition.

6. The landlord filed another petition in RCOP No.595 of 2013 under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act for evicting the tenant alleging that the tenanted premises was let out to non-residential purpose of running a kalyana mandapam. Contrary to the terms of agreement, the tenant is living in the premises with his family. Therefore, he is liable to be evicted on the ground of different user. The tenanted premises is required for the purpose of running thirumana maligai by the landlord. Therefore, the building is required for owner's occupation. This petition was contested by the tenant alleging that this petition is yet another attempt to evict the tenant. The tenant was working as a Manager under one A.Palanisami Nadar, who was previously running thirumana maligai on lease in this premises. As a manager, he was residing in the tenanted premises from 1997. Palanisami Nadar could not run the mandapam from 2005 and therefore, he has become directly a tenant under the landlord. It is not correct to say that the building is used for a different purpose. Initially landlord was running the kalyana mandapam. They found it is not feasible because the overhead expenses more than the income derived. Therefore, they let the premise