Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


G.Kumaradoss v. K.Rajalingam - CRP.NPD.745 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1756 (5 June 2007)


DATED: 05.06.2007



CRP.NPD.NOS.745 AND 746 OF 2007


CMP.NOS.2 + 2 of 2007

G.Kumaradoss ....Petitioner in CRP.No.745/07 G.Haridoss ...Petitioner in CRP.No.746/07 Vs.

K.Rajalingam ...Respondent in both CRPs. Civil Revision Petitions filed against the fair and decretal order of dismissal dated 11.1.2007 in RCA.Nos.410 of 2004 and 413 of 2004 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, learned Judge, VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, For Petitioners: Mr.P.N.Radhakrishnan For Respondent: Mr.S.Krishnasamy O R D E R

This order shall govern these two Civil revision petitions.

2. These Civil Revision petitions were arisen from the order of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai made in RCA.Nos.410 and 413 of 2004 whereby the orders passed by the Rent Controller in RCOP.Nos.887 and 891 of 2001 were confirmed.

3. The respondent who is admittedly the owner of the premises in question, sought eviction of the revision petitioners/tenants on the ground of additional accommodation. Originally these two petitioners/tenants and another were occupying three shops situated in the ground floor and subsequently there was a construction raised in the first floor where they were shifted; that the tenants were occupying the three shops in the first floor measuring 10'x 10' roughly each, while the landlord is carrying on his grocery business by occupying the shops situated in the ground floor. Three RCOPs. were filed and the first RCOP. was taken up for enquiry earlier and the same was dismissed and against the order of dismissal, the landlord has challenged the same by way of an appeal and the same is pending. In so far as other two RCOPs on the same ground were taken up for enquiry and on enquiry, eviction was ordered. Aggrieved tenants preferred appeals in RCA.Nos.410 and 413 of 2004 whereby the appellate authority has confirmed the orders of the Rent Controller and hence these two revisions before this Court.

4. Advancing his argument on behalf of the revision petitioners, the learned counsel would submit that there are three shops in the first floor each measuring 10' x 10' roughly and out of three RCOP petitions, one was originally dismissed and an appeal has been preferred and the same is also pending and in so far as other two RCOPs. are concerned, eviction was sought for on the ground of additional accommodation. A reading of the Rent Control Original Petitions would clearly indicate that the landlord is running a grocery shop in the ground floor and he wants to store the goods in the shops situated in the first floor and also he wanted to give accommodation to seven of his employees, who are working in the said shop and hence he sought for eviction . Learned counsel would further add that out of these three shops, which shop required for the purpose of storing goods and which shop required for accommodation of his employees was not made known and further, the landlord who is carrying on his grocery shop, pending the proceedings has only raised construction for godown and also for accommodation for his employees and it cannot be a bonafide reason on the part of the respondent/landlord in seeking the premises and further in the instant case, one of the petition was already dismissed and other two petitions at the instance of landlord were allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated about the relative hardship that the petitioners would lose their entire livelihood as well as their customers and goodwill, if they are thrown out from the petition premises. The petitioner in CRP.No.745 of 2007 is carrying on electronic goods business and the petitioner in CRP.No.746 of 2007 is carrying on Gas Stove service business and if they are directed to vacate, hardship would be caused to them. The authorities have not considered all the aspects or any of the aspect of the matter. Hence, both the orders of the authorities below have got to be set aside.

6. In answering to the above contention, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord would submit that the additional accommodation as put forth by the respondent was proved that the landlord is carrying on his grocery shop and therefore for storing his materials, he requires the premises in the first floor and also for additional accommodation for the employees, who are working in the grocery shop and further when all the shops are bonafidely required by the landlord, there is no need to mention which shop is required for stay of the employees and which shop is required for storing the materials. The contention that there was a subsequent construction of godown and also the place for accommodation of the employees is nothing, but a false one. The petitioners/tenants have not proved the above said contentions. But it is a empty assertion by the tenants. Under the circumstances, the order of the Courts below have got to be sustained.

7. After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority does not require any interference. Originally, the respondent/landlord had shops in the ground floor where the tenants were running their business and after construction of the first floor, they were shifted to first floor and the landlord has commenced his business of grocery in the ground floor. It is not the fact in controversy that the landlord as on date, carrying on his business in grocery in the shops situated in the ground floor and at this juncture, the test has to be applied is whether the landlord required additional accommodation as put forth by him. It is not the case of the tenants that the landlord is having any other building anywhere and what they urged before this Court is that he has raised additional construction for the purpose of godown and for the purpose of the staying of his employees pending proceedings, which is a mere assertion made before this Court. No material is available before this Court to accept the said contention. Apart from that, in the absence of any other building available to the landlord who is carrying on his grocery business and when he has decided to store his material in the same building, naturally additional accommodation has got to be given to him. In the instant case, the contention put forth by the learned counsel that out of three shops situated in the first floor, which is required for additional accommodation for stay and which is required for storing the materials, which in the opinion of the Court need not be given, in view of the fact that the total area of three shops in the first floor is only 300 sq.ft. Further, the contention put forth by the revision petitioner that if the tenants are evicted, they have to face hardships and under such circumstances, they should not be evicted, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that if they are not evicted, hardship caused to the landlord would be more than the tenants. When the landlord is having his own premises, which are now occupied by the tenants and when the same are now required by the landlord for the purpose of storing the goods, I am of the opinion that the requirement of landlord for additional accommodation is nothing but genuine one in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the order of the lower appellate authority does not suffer any infirmity or illegality which require any interference by this Court.

8. It is brought to the notice of the Court that both the tenants are carrying on their business in the said premises for a long time and hence they must be given sufficient time in order to find out a suitable accommodation for their shops. Under such circumstances, one year time is given to the tenants from the date of this order for vacating and handing over possession to the landlord and during which period, they are directed to pay Rs.1,500/- as per the rent fixed by the authorities below.

9. The Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, CMP.NOS.2 + 2 of 2007 are also dismissed. VJY


The Registrar,

Small Causes Court,



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.