Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


S.Subramanian v. S.Srinivasulu Reddy - CRP.NPD.1156 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 2037 (21 June 2007)





CRP.NPD.NOs.1156 and 1157 OF 2007

S.Subramanian ..Petr. in both CRP


S.Srinivasulu Reddy ..Respdt. in both CRP

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control ) Act 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973 and Act 1 of 1990 against the fair and decretal order dated 24.1.2006 and made in RCOP.Nos.2439 of 2004 and 85 of 2005 on the file of XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai as modified and confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2007 and made in RCA.Nos.142 and 143 of 2006 respectively on the file of VIII Court of Small Causes Court,Chennai(Rent Control) Appellate Authority. For Petitioner:Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahamed For Respondent:Mr.S.Vadivel O R D E R

This order shall govern the two CRPs. i.e. CRP.Nos.1156 and 1157 of 2007.

2.These two revisions were arisen from the common order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority made in RCA.NOs.142 and 143 of 2006.

3. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. The respondent/landlord has purchased the property in question which was totally covered the area of 1097 sq.ft. having ground floor and first floor in which the revision petitioner/tenant was occupying in the ground floor portion with the area of 900 sq.ft. by making the monthly payment of rent of Rs.1,200/-. The respondent/landlord filed two RCOPs. viz. (1)RCOP.No.2439 of 2004 for fixation of fair rent and (2) RCOP.No. 85 of 2005 for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

5. Both petitions were taken up for enquiry by the XVIII Small Causes Court and in so far as RCOP.No.85 of 2005 was concerned, eviction was ordered granting two months time for vacating the premises, while RCOP.No.2439 of 2004 for fixation of fair rent, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.3,673/-. Aggrieved over the said orders, the tenant preferred two RCAs. as referred to above. Both were taken for joint enquiry and on enquiry, the appellate authority while confirming the order of eviction, enhanced the fair rent by fixing at Rs.5,265/- p.m.. Aggrieved over the said order, the tenant has brought forth these two revisions before this Court.

6. Advancing his argument on behalf of the revision petitioner/tenant, learned counsel would submit that the petition filed for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction thoroughly lacks bonafide. The building was neither old nor the condition of the building was bad and the landlord has no financial source for putting up new construction. Even as per his evidence, except this property, he did not possess any property at all. He has an intention to construct a new building, is nothing but an invention for the purpose of getting an order of eviction. He has also filed a petition for fixation of fair rent. The authorities below have not adverted the fact that the landlord did not have financial means which lacks bonafide requirement of the building in question and hence all the above factors are necessary for passing an order of eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. It is pertinent to point out that a petition for fixation of fair rent was filed on 29.12.2004, while the eviction petition was filed on 10.1.2005. This would be indicative of the fact that the respondent/landlord had the real intention of evicting the tenant because there was no need for filing an application for fixation of fair rent i.e. enhancement of rent and thus it is clear that he had no intention to make a new construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further add that in so far as the fixation of fair rent was concerned, originally the rent was fixed at Rs.1,200/-p.m. and subsequently it was enhanced and fixed at Rs.3,673/- p.m. by the Rent Controller. Even without considering the factual positions under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu (Buildings and Rent Control) Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority enhanced the rent and fixed at Rs.5,265/-p.m., Thus, it was defective and not in accordance with law and hence both the orders have got to be set aside.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord on the above contentions.

8. After a careful consideration on the rival submissions made and after looking into the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the authorities below for eviction has got to be sustained. Admittedly, the property was purchased by the respondent/landlord on 18.11.2004 and the tenant has been in occupation even under the previous owner. Admittedly the petition premises has ground floor and first floor and the ground floor of the building is used by the tenant for residential purpose. It is not in controversy that the building is situated at Triplicane where, M.A.C stadium, State Guest House, Madras University, Star Theatre, Chepauk Railway Station are close to the building. Hospitals, Schools, lodges and cinema theatres are also in the close vicinity of the building. Under such circumstances, it is quite natural that the landlord who purchased the property in order to derive more income from it, has filed the eviction petition. Insofar as the financial sources are concerned, it is needless to say that in a case like this, the law does not require the landlord who seeks for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction should have got liquid cash in hand. He can avail loan facility from financial institution by mortgaging the sale deed of the said property . It is quite natural that for commercial constructions in prime localities, the banks are always willing to lend money. In the instant case, with regard to the financial position of the landlord, he has filed Exs.P.8,9,10,12 and 13. Among these documents, especially Ex.P.12 show that the landlord has Fixed Deposits to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- in his name and this amount would certainly serve the purpose of showing margin money before Banks to raise loan for construction. Hence, the landlord is not having sufficient source or money or he is not having any other property, cannot be a reason to deny the relief.

9. While the landlord wants the building on the ground of demolition and reconstruction for deriving more income from the property and the tenant is a person of 65 years old bachelor occupying the premises for residential purpose, this Court is of the view that more hardship would be caused to the landlord than the tenant. Under the circumstances, the authorities below have properly considered the above aspect and passed the order of eviction which does not call for any interference by this Court and consequently, the order of eviction has got to be sustained.

10. In so far as fixation of fair rent is concerned, originally the rent was fixed at Rs.1200/- p.m. and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.3,673/-p.m. by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority enhanced the rent to Rs.5,265/-p.m. which in the opinion of the Court is not fair.

11. Taking into consideration the fact that the building is situated in posh area and also considering the age of the building, this Court feels it proper to fix the fair rent at Rs.3,500/- p.m. which shall be payable from the date of application before the lower Court till the date of handing over possession of the building. Taking into consideration the fact that the tenant is occupying the premises for residential purpose, reasonable time has got to be given to him and accordingly the revision petitioner/tenant shall occupy the said premises till December, 2007. The revision petitioner/tenant shall hand over the petition premises to the landlord/respondent by the end of December 2007 and he is also directed to file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect, within a period of two weeks herefrom. All the arrears of rent calculated from the time of filing of RCOPs. till June, 2007 at Rs.3,500/- p.m. has to be paid within a period of three months. He is also directed to pay the monthly rent periodically, from July 2007 till the date of handing over possession of the building.

12. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. 21.06.2007 Index:Yes/No




The Registrar, Small Causes Court, Chennai.



CRP.NPD.NOS.1156 AND 1157 OF 2007 21.06.2007



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.