High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Kalimuthu Pillai v. Sakunthala Ammal - C.R.P.(NPD) No.1689 of 2005  RD-TN 668 (17 September 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM C.R.P.(NPD) No.1689 of 2005
CMP No.14917 of 2005
Kalimuthu Pillai .. Petitioner -Vs-
Sakunthala Ammal .. Respondent Civil revision petition preferred under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by Act 1/1980 and Act 23 of 1973, against the judgment and decree made in RCA No.12 of 2003 dated 21.7.2005 by the Rent Control A late Tribunal (Sub Court), Thiruvarur, confirming the judgment and decree in RCOP No.3/2002 dated 30.4.2003 made by the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Thiruvarur. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran
For Respondent : Mr.B.Ramamoorthy
Challenging a judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruvarur, made in RCA No.12 of 2003 affirming an order of the Rent Controller, Tiruvarur, in RCOP No.3 of 2002 filed by the respondent herein seeking eviction on the grounds of demolit and reconstruction, under Sections 10(3)(a)(ii) and 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23/72, the petitioner/tenant has brought forth this civil revision petition.
2. The case of the respondent/landlady before the Courts below was that the petition mentioned property belonged to her; that the revision petitioner has been occupying a shop, wherein he is conducting his business, at the rate of Rs.40/- per month rds rent; that the building is required for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a new building; that the landlady has got three sons; that the premises is required for carrying on their business; that a notice was issued; but, containing fals e allegations, a reply notice has been issued by the tenant, and under the circumstances, the landlady was constrained to approach the Court for an order of eviction.
3. The petition was contested by the revision petitioner/tenant on the grounds that he has been there for the past 40 years; that it is not correct to state that the premises is required for carrying on the business of the landlady's sons; that orig ly, they have been carrying on their business under the name and style of Nataraj Boundary in their own building, wherein they have been producing spare parts; that they have got a branch office also; that there is no bona fide on her part; that he has also spent Rs.2,000/- for the modification done in the building, and under the circumstances, without any proper ground necessitated, the landlady has approached the Court, and hence, her claim was to be rejected.
5. The Rent Controller on enquiry found that the claim was made bona fide, and that the premises is required by the landlady, and thus, passed an order of eviction. The appeal preferred at the instance of the revision petitioner/tenant, met the sam te at the hands of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Hence, this revision preferred before this Court.
6. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondent/caveator.
7. After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out in the revision.
8. It is an admitted position that the petition mentioned property belonged to the respondent/landlady, and the revision petitioner has been occupying the shop as a monthly tenant. The question that arose for consideration before the authorities be and equally here also, is that whether the building in question, is required by the landlady for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a new building to enable her sons to carry on their business. It is also an admitted position that the landl ady has got three sons. That apart, they are having a Boundary wherein spare parts are being produced. The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that they are actually having a building of their own in some other place, in which they have been carrying on their business, and hence, she is not entitled to maintain the petition at all as per the provisions of the Act. Once it is brought to the notice of the Court that though they have got a building of their own in which they are carrying on their Boundary, wherein they are manufacturing spare parts and selling the same, they require the building in question, and the building is old, and apart from that, for the better investment, the landlady comes forward to d emolish the same and construct a new building, there cannot be any legal impediment for ordering eviction. That apart, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant before the authorities below have been properly rejected, a nd both the factual and legal positions were in favour of the respondent/landlady. Under the circumstances, the Court has to necessarily reject the revision petition. The lower authorities were perfectly correct in ordering eviction, and this Court does not find anything to interfere with the same.
9. However, considering the facts and circumstances that the petitioner is also running a shop in the premises in question, he has got to be given reasonable time for eviction and handing over possession of the shop. Therefore, six months' time is ted from today for eviction and handing over possession by the petitioner/tenant.
10. In the result, with the above observation, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.
1)The Rent Control Appellate Authority
2)The Rent Controller (District Munsif Court)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.