High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Murugan Stores v. S.Ramadevi - CRP.NPD.1772 of 2007  RD-TN 2163 (4 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 4-7-2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
C.R.P.NPD No.1772 of 2007
M.P.No.1 of 2007
rep. By its Partner
3.Baskaran @ Babu .. Petitioners vs
S.Ramadevi .. Respondent Civil revision petition preferred under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Tamilnadu Act 23 of 1973 and Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1980 against the decree and judgment of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras in RCA No.398 of 2001 dated 27.4.2007 reversing the decree and judgment in RCOP No.647 of 1998 dated 28.2.2001 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras. For Petitioners : Mr.P.K.Sivasubramaniam For Respondent : Mr.C.Jaganathan for caveator ORDER
Challenge is made to an order of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, made in RCA No.398 of 2001 whereby an order of dismissal of a petition in RCOP No.647/98 by the Rent Controller was reversed, and eviction was ordered.
2.The respondent-landlady brought forth the said application for eviction alleging that the petitioners have occupied a premises mentioned in the application at the monthly rental of Rs.700/-; that the landlady is occupying only an area of 100 sq. ft. for the purpose of carrying on her lathe pattarai; that it is not sufficient for her; that the premises occupied by the tenants, is adjacent to her portion; that if the wall in between them is removed, she could have sufficient accommodation to carry on the business; that under the circumstances, it is required on the ground of additional accommodation, and hence, eviction was sought for.
3.The application was strongly resisted by the revision petitioners-tenants stating that they were having their godown for more than three decades; that actually, there was no need for the landlady to seek eviction; that there was also lack of bonafide, and under the circumstances, it was to be dismissed.
4.The Rent Controller on enquiry, dismissed the application. Aggrieved, the respondent-landlady took it on appeal. On appeal, the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application, was reversed and eviction was ordered. Not satisfied, the tenants have brought forth this revision before this Court.
5.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the revision petitioners, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the landlady has brought forth that application without any bonafide; that it is true that she was carrying on her business by drawing a line on the ever-silver utensils; that she was occupying the premises measuring 100 sq. ft.; that the same would be sufficient for her; that there was no need for any additional accommodation; that the petitioners have been using the premises as godown for storing the ever-silver vessels; that they were having their shop nearby; that the Rent Controller was perfectly correct in dismissing the application, since it has relied on the evidence of the landlady who stated that there were four rooms, out of which two were vacant; that once these rooms were vacant, the landlady could better use them; that no explanation was tendered; that under the circumstances, the application was lacking bonafide, and hence, it was a fit case where the order of the Rent Controller has got to be restored, and the order of the appellate authority has got to be set aside.
6.The Court also heard the learned Counsel for the respondent-caveator on the above contentions.
7.After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, and also looking into the materials available and in particular, the orders of the authorities below, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision does not require admission in the hands of this Court. It is not in controversy that the petitioners have been the tenants in respect of the shop premises having an extent of 19 x 8 sq. ft. in the past few decades, and they have also been using it as godown for storing their ever-silver utensils. It is also not in controversy that the respondent-landlady is also carrying on her profession in the next shop. According to the landlady, it is a lathe pattarai. It is admitted by the tenants that she was drawing a line on the ever-silver utensils in the next shop. According to the respondent-landlady, examined as P.W.1, it is required for her business purpose, and there is a wall in between the shops, and if that wall is removed, she could have the use of the same, and as on today, she is using the property having a small extent, and since the business has become extended, it has become necessary for her to seek additional accommodation. The only contention what was raised before the authorities below and equally here also, is that there are three rooms available; that they are also kept locked, and hence, it can be better used by her. Pending the proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. He has also made an inspection and filed the report to the effect that no one portion is vacant. Even assuming that 2 or 3 rooms are vacant, once the landlady has come forward to state that the premises occupied by the tenants, which is adjacent to her portion, is required, and in between the shops, there is a wall, and if the wall is removed, it would be more convenient for her profession, and hence, she seeks additional accommodation, the Court has to look into the convenience of the landlady. Apart from that, the reason adduced by the tenants that she could use the other portion for her profession cannot be countenanced.
8.As far as the eviction sought for in any given case on the ground of additional accommodation, is concerned, if it is proved by the landlord that he is also carrying on his business, and the next shop premises is actually in occupation of the tenants, and if eviction is ordered, it would be convenient for him, the Court has to consider the same as a good ground. In the instant case, the tenants cannot ask and direct the landlady to pick and chose as they like. Under the circumstances, the appellate authority was perfectly correct in setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and ordering eviction. This Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the order of the appellate authority has got to be sustained. Accordingly, it is sustained. However, taking into consideration the place where it is situated, 9 (nine) months' time is granted for vacating and handing over possession. An affidavit of undertaking should be filed within a period of 2 weeks herefrom.
9.Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. 4-7-2007 Index: yes
1.The VII Judge
Court of Small Causes
2.The XI Judge
Court of Small Causes
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.