C.R.P(PD)No.1502 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

C.R.P(PD).No.1502 of 2017

and

CMP.No.7007 of 2017

1.S.Kaliyaperumal

2.Kalyanasundaram

3.Ramasami

4.Ramalingam

5.Shanmuga Mudaliar Javuli Store,

Rep. By its Managing Partner,

S.Ramalingam, S/o.Shanmuga Mudaliar

..Petitioners

Vs.

Muthukumar

..Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2016 in

RCOP.No.6 of 2011 dated 30.01.2017 on the file of the Principal District

Munsif Court(Rent Controller), Chidambaram.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Muthukumar

For Respondent

: Mr.N.Sankaravadivel

1/14

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

C.R.P(PD)No.1502 of 2017

O R D E R

The revision petitioners were the respondents in RCOP.No.6 of

2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court / Rent Controller at

Chidambaram. They are aggrieved by an order dated 30.01.2017 passed in

I.A.No.6 of 2016.

2.R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2011 has been filed by the respondent herein in

his capacity as a landlord, taking advantage of Section 10(2)(i) and also

Section 10(3)(c) of the TamilNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,

1960 as amended.

3.The issues in the Revision Petition arise out of the averments

made with respect to seeking eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the

aforementioned act alone. No reference had been made with respect to the

averments relating to Section 10(2)(i) of the Rent Control Act. Let me make

it clear that this revision petition is confined only to the averments relating

to 10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act / seeking eviction on the ground of

additional accomodation.

2/14

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

C.R.P(PD)No.1502 of 2017

4.The respondent is the owner of Door Nos.140-144, West Car

Street, Chidambaram. The petition premises however, is in Door No.145,

West Car Street, Chidambaram. The petitioners are carrying on business in

textiles in the ground floor of Door No.145. That ground floor is sought as

additional accomodation by the respondent / landlord.

5.It is the claim of the respondent that he is already carrying on

business in Door Nos.140-144 and that Door No.145 has a ground floor, 1^st

and 2^nd floor and that he requires the ground floor also for additional

accomodation. It is also contended that he is doing busines in the 1^st and 2^nd

floors also and therefore, it would be convenient to him to have the ground

floor also under his occupation. All these aspects had been denied by the

revision petitioners in their counter. It was specifically denied that the

respondent / landlord was carrying on a similar nature of business as is

being carried on in D.Nos.140-144 or any business at all in the 1^st floor and

in the 2^nd floor portions of Door No.145, West Car Street, Chidambaram.

3/14

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

C.R.P(PD)No.1502 of 2017

6.On the basis of the rival contentions, the parties were invited to

graze the witness box.

7.The parties also adduced evidence. After adducing evidence,

and there is no complaint that there was denial of opportunity to adduce

evidence, the respondent / landlord had filed an application under Section

18A of the Rent Control Act to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. It was

claimed that the Advocate Commissioner should visit the premises namely,

the 1^st and 2nd floor premises of Door No.145, West Car Street and also

Door Nos.140-144, West Car Street and ascertain whether the respondent /

landlord is carrying on business as stated by him in the 1^st floor and in the

2^nd floor of Door No.145. This application came to be resisted by the

revision petitioners herein.

8.Finally, the Rent Controller passed an order on 30.01.2017,

which order is the subject matter of the present revision petition.

4/14

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

C.R.P(PD)No.1502 of 2