C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.09.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

C.R.P(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021

and CMP.Nos.10705, 10744, 10746, 10750, 10755 & 10764 of 2021

CRP(NPD)No.1382 of 2021

Umedmal B. Jain

.. Petitioner

vs

Suraj Devi

.. Respondent

Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease

and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated

01.12.2020, passed by the Learned VII Court of Small Causes at

Chennai, Appellate Authority, in RCA.No.712 of 2017, confirming the

fair and decretal order dated 31.08.2017 made learned X Court of Small

Causes, Chennai in RCOP.No.1990 of 2011 and thereby dismiss the

petition filed for eviction.

(In all CRPs)

For Petitioners

: Ms.Tanya Kapoor

For Respondent

: Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal

1/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been preferred by the tenants.

There is no dispute in the jural relationship of landlady and tenants. For

the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as landlady and

tenants.

2.The landlady launched applications in R.C.O.P.Nos.1990, 1992,

1993, 1994, 1995 and 1998 of 2011 on the ground that her sons Kiran

Raj Jain, Dinesh Kumar Jain and Praveen Kumar Jain are carrying on

business in a rented premises. According to her, her sons' business is

growing in very huge volumes and therefore they are not in a position to

find enough space to accommodate their goods and to consult and meet

their clients. She would state that the existing rented premises in which

they are currently carrying on business i.e. No.56, Narayana Mudali

Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai is not suitable for expansion of the business.

She also stated that she has no other buildings in the City of Chennai and

existing business would be sufficient for the business purposes of her

sons. Even on the date of filing of the RCOPs, the landlady was about 63

years old.

3.On being served with notice each of the tenants entered

appearance and filed a detailed counter. The stand that they had taken in

2/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021

the counter is that there is a vacant shop in the ground floor of the

premises and another shop had been vacated recently by one firm by

name “Sangeetha Toys” and that there is a suppression of facts by the

landlady to overcome the statutory provisions relating to additional

accommodation and also that the Court has to consider the relative

hardship between the eviction of the tenants vis-a-vis their continuance

in the property.

4.The tenants also pleaded that the landlady is the owner of the

premises in Moolakadai, Vepery High Road, Kondithoppu and several

other places. They would also state that the sons themselves are owners

of other premises and therefore, they are not entitled to seek for eviction.

The tenants will plea that they are in occupation of the premises for more

than 20 years and therefore, if the petition filed for eviction is allowed,

they would be put to cause irreparable hardship.

5.The matter went to trial before the learned Rent Controller, who

recorded the summary of proceedings. The Rent Controller was satisfied

that the requirements of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (in short 'Act') have been

satisfied and consequently ordered eviction.

6.Aggrieved by the same, the tenants filed R.C.A.Nos.712, 713,

3/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021

714, 715, 716 & 718 of 2017. The Rent Control Appellate Authority

agreed with the findings returned by the Rent Controller and ordered

eviction.

7.Against the concurrent findings on both the bonafid