High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
R.Tamilselvam v. P.Thangaswamy - CRP.NPD.2133 of 2007  RD-TN 2552 (31 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31-7-2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
C.R.P.NPD No.2133 of 2007
MP No.1 of 2007
R.Tamilselvam .. Petitioner vs
2.T.Jasmin Deva Arul Selvi
Minor rep. by mother & guardian
T.Bhagyam .. Respondents Civil revision petition preferred under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/60 as amended by Act 23/73 and Act 1/80 against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2007 in RCA No.71 of 2005 passed by the VIII Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dismissing the appeal filed against the order of eviction dated 17.8.2004 passed by the XII Judge (Rent Controller), Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCOP No.426 of 2003 under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai For Respondents : Mr.V.Avudainayagam for caveator ORDER
Challenge is made to a judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in RCA No.71 of 2005 which arose from the order of eviction passed in RCOP No.426 of 2003 by the Rent Controller, namely the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.
2.The original landlord namely the husband of the first respondent herein, filed two petitions in RCOP Nos.425 and 426 of 2003 for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation stating that the premises bearing Old No.23, New No.107, Sundaram Pillai Nagar, Vaidyanatha Mudali Street, Ennore High Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai, belonged to him; that the respondents in the RCOPs were the tenants under him; that in the rear portion the family of the landlord is living; that his wife started a School under the name and style of Angels Baby Land in the first floor; that in the front portion, number of shops are situated; that six tenants are occupying the same; that out of six, two are the respondents in the main RCOPs; that originally, the said School had LKG, UKG, 1st 2nd and 3rd Standards; that thereafter, recognition was granted for Standards I to X; that every academic year, the strength has become increasing; that even for the purpose of keeping the library books and also for running the School, they do not have sufficient accommodation; that what is available with them in the first floor is insufficient, and hence, they decided to vacate all the tenants; that accordingly, it was informed to them; but, they were not amenable, and under the circumstance, it became necessary to file the said petitions.
3.In both the petitions, the tenants took a common stand that the wife of the landlord is the Correspondent of the School; that the School was being run by a Trust; that the provision of law could be available to a landlord to seek eviction on the ground of additional accommodation for any one of the members of his family, but not so in the instant case, and under the circumstances, the petitions were not maintainable.
4.Both the petitions were taken up for enquiry by the Rent Controller, and they were decided in favour of the landlord, and eviction was ordered. Not satisfied with the same, both the tenants took it on appeals in RCA Nos.1212 of 2004 and 71 of 2005 respectively as stated above. Both the appeals were taken up for enquiry. The appellate authority also took the view that additional accommodation asked for by the wife of the landlord, was genuine, and the contentions put forth by the appellants/tenants were to be rejected and accordingly, rejected and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Out of these two tenants, the respondent in RCOP No.426 of 2003 has brought forth this revision challenging the judgment in RCA No.71 of 2005.
5.It is pertinent to point out that the respondent in the other RCOP No.425 of 2003 has brought forth a revision in CRP No.1862 of 2007. This Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the revision on 10.7.2007, granting 9 months' time to the tenant.
6.The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that in the instant case, the School is, admittedly, being run by a Trust; that according to the original landlord, he requires the premises for additional accommodation for running the School; that the landlord has nothing to do with the School, since it is being run by a Trust; that the wife of the landlord is only the Correspondent and also the Principal; that she is being paid by the Trust; that under the circumstances, the Trust is actually the tenant under the landlord who is the original petitioner before the Rent Controller; that in the instant case, Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act cannot be applied since additional accommodation could be asked for only for any one of the members of the landlord's family and not for any other purposes; that in the instant case, once there is a clear proof that the School belonged to a Trust, and the landlord's wife is actually the Correspondent cum Principal, the said provision of law could not be applied; that in such circumstances, the RCOP itself was not maintainable and should have been rejected by the authorities below, but not done so, and hence, the orders of the authorities below have got to be set aside.
7.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondents on the above contentions.
8.Now, it is brought to the notice of the Court that pending the RCA, P.W.1, the landlord, died, and actually the property devolved upon P.W.2 namely his wife, and her daughter, and they have been added as parties, and they are the respondents herein.
9.After careful consideration of the rival submissions made and looking into the materials available, this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders of the authorities below do not require any interference in the hands of this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner before this Court has been the tenant under the original landlord in the past and running the shop by making monthly payment of rental. Now, the case of the landlord was that the wife is running a School; that in that School, originally, they had the recognition for LKG, UKG and I to III Standards; that now, it has come to the level of X Standard; that apart from that, the strength has been increasing year by year; that the space in the first floor where the School is being run all along, is not sufficient to have a library and also to run the School; that under the circumstances, the petitioner herein was to be evicted for additional accommodation to run the School, and hence, it was required, and he sought eviction on that ground. What was all stated by the revision petitioner/tenant before the authorities below and equally here also is that the School is being run by a Trust; that the landlord's wife is only the Correspondent cum Principal; that she is a paid servant, and thus, the Trust itself is the tenant under the landlord; that the provision of law could be given force in a given situation where additional accommodation is asked for only for any one of the members of the family of the landlord and not otherwise; and that in the instant case, the said provision of law cannot be applied. The contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner have been rightly rejected by both the authorities below. In the instant case, the landlord was examined as P.W.1, and his wife was examined as P.W.2. From the documentary evidence that was available and in particular Ex.P2, it would be abundantly clear that a Trust called Angels Baby Land Educational Trust, was created by the wife of the landlord, and she was the sole trustee. Thus, it would be quite evident that she is the Correspondent. It is also an admitted fact that she is the Correspondent of the present School. It is also quite evident that the Trust is having only one trustee; that the sole trustee is the wife of the landlord; that she is running the School, and that School is actually called Angels Baby Land Matriculation School of which she is the Correspondent. Under the circumstances, the contention that there is a trust, which is independent, and that Trust is running the School, and the lady has nothing to do with the Trust, and further the Trust itself is the tenant under the landlord, though attractive at the first instance to be heard, cannot stand the scrutiny since all the documentary evidence which were produced before the Rent Controller and marshaled and considered by the authorities below as narrated in the orders, would make it evident that the landlord's wife is actually the sole trustee of the Trust, and she is also the Correspondent of the School, and she is running the School. In the instant case, additional accommodation asked for was thoroughly justified by the documentary evidence adduced. Thus, the orders of the authorities below have got to be sustained, and accordingly, they are sustained.
10.However, taking into consideration the fact that the tenant is running his business in the premises, this Court is of the view that reasonable time has got to be granted. Accordingly, nine months' time is granted for vacating and handing over possession to the landlord. An affidavit of undertaking should be filed within a period of two weeks herefrom.
11.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. nsv/
1)The Rent Control Appellate Authority
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Rent Controller
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.