.CRP.No.875 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On: 13.03.2023

Pronounced On: 28.04.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

C.R.P.No.875/2021

1. Mr.N.N.Gafoor

2. Mr.Muneem

... Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents

Vs.

Mr.R.Srikumaran ... Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the Decree and

Judgment dated 08.02.2021 made in RCA.No.19/2019 on the file of the VII

Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP.No.195 of 2017 on the file of the

XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai and allow the RCA.No.19/2019 by

reversing the Order dated 01.11.2018 made in RCOP.No.195 of 2017 on the

file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Petitioners

: Mr.V.Ayyadurai

Senior Counsel for

Mr.S.Thanka Sivan

For Respondent

: Mr.M.L.Joseph for

Chennai Law Associates

1/33

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

.CRP.No.875 of 2021

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Decree and

Judgment dated 08.02.2021 made in RCA.No.19/2019 on the file of the VII

Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP.No.195 of 2017 on the file of the

XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai and allow the RCA.No.19/2019 by

reversing the Order dated 01.11.2018 made in RCOP.No.195 of 2017 on the

file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2.

The brief facts, which are necessary to decide this Civil

Revision Petition, are as follows:-

2.1.

Originally RCOP No.195 of 2017 was filed on the ground that

the son of the landlord (Respondent in this Petition is the owner, as the

property was settled by him in favour of his son). The demised premises

measures about 1800 Sq.ft in ground floor. The building is three storey

building. The demised premises was sought for owner's occupation on the

ground that the Respondent (son of the original owner in whose favour

original owner had executed the settlement deed). The Petitioner in

R.C.O.P.No.195 of 2017 requires the premises for his business purpose.

2/33

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

.CRP.No.875 of 2021

The Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.195 of 2017 is an unemployed graduate having

no other properties in the City of Chennai. The tenant as Respondent in

RCOP.No.195 of 2017 filed counter contending that the landlord has many

properties in Chennai. After filing of the counter, the enquiry was

proceeded. In the enquiry, the landlord who is the Petitioner in

RCOP.No.195 of 2017 was examined as P.W-1. He was cross-examined by

the Counsel for the tenant, who is the Respondent in RCOP.No.195 of 2017.

In the cross-examination, P.W-1 had admitted that he has business and also,

the family has other properties in Chennai. At this stage, the landlord filed

M.P.No.549 of 2017 in RCOP.No.195 of 2017 seeking to amend the

Provision of law. The M.P.No.549 of 2017 was resisted by the tenant by

filing detailed counter. In the Petition in M.P.No.549 of 2017, enquiry was

conducted and after due enquiry, M.P.No.549 of 2017 was allowed.

Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed Rent Control Appeal where the Rent

Control Appeal was dismissed and confirming the Order of the learned Rent

Controller in M.P.No.549 of 2017 in RCOP.No.195 of 2017. Aggrieved by

the same, the tenant filed Civil Revision Petition before this Court in

CRP.(PD).No.1512 of 2018. In that Petition, the order of the learned Rent

3/33

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

.CRP.No.875 of 2021

Controller in allowing the M.P.No.549 of 2017