Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S.M.D.Metals vs V.Shantha
2021 Latest Caselaw 1383 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1383 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2021

Madras High Court
M/S.M.D.Metals vs V.Shantha on 21 January, 2021
                                                               C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1649 & 2605 of 2015

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 21.01.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                         C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1649 & 2605 of 2015
                                              and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015

                     M/s.M.D.Metals,
                     Rep by its Proprietor Mr.T.Mohanlal,
                     No.30/1, Kesava Iyer Street,
                     Park Town,
                     Chennai - 600 003.                                ... Petitioner in
                                                                           CRP.No.1649/2015

                     M/s.Tarun Trading Corporation,
                     No.30/1, Kesava Iyer Street,
                     Park Town,
                     Chennai - 600 003.                                ... Petitioner in
                                                                           CRP.No.2605/2015
                                                         Vs.
                     1. V.Shantha
                     2. A.Shankar                                      ... Respondents in

both CRPs.

Prayer in C.R.P.(NPD)No.1649 of 2015 :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2015 in R.C.A.No.613 of 2008 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes (Appellate Authority) Chennai, reversing the oder dated 12.06.2008

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1649 & 2605 of 2015

made in R.C.O.P.No.2188 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

Prayer in C.R.P.(NPD)No.2605 of 2015 :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2015 in R.C.A.No.2008 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai, setting aside the Decree and order dated 12.06.2008 made in R.C.O.P.No.2190 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

For Petitioner in CRP.1649/2015 : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Petitioner in CRP.2605/2015 : Mr.J.Jamesh For Respondent in both CRPs : Mr.P.Seshadri COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the fair and

decreetal orders dated 27.01.2015 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court

of Small Causes at Chennai, in RCA.Nos.613 & 614 of 2008 respectively,

thereby setting aside the orders dated 12.06.2008 passed by the learned XIII

Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.O.P.Nos.2188 & 2190 of

2006 respectively, thereby dismissing the petition for eviction.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1649 & 2605 of 2015

2. Both the petitioners are tenants under the respondents herein.

The respondents filed petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.2188 & 2190 of 2016

respectively, for eviction on three grounds of own use, occupation for

residential & non-residential and additional accommodation. The learned

Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petitions on those grounds for the

reason that for requirement of a non-residential portion for owner's

occupation to run a business, the burden is on the landlord to establish that

it is not a mere desire to commence such business, instead it is bonafide

requirement to commence and run such a business. The burden is heavy on

the landlord to prove preparation towards such commencement of business.

3. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the

petitions only on the ground that under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in case it is any other non-

residential building, if the landlord or any member of his family is not

occupying for purpose of a business which he or any member of his family

is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1649 & 2605 of 2015

concerned which is his own. Therefore, the claim of the respondents is

bonafide and the petitioners are liable to be evicted.

4. That apart, the petition premises is a shop portion in the front

side of the ground floor let out to the petitioners to run their business. The

petition premises consists of ground floor and first floor. The first floor is

meant for residential purpose and front portion of the ground floor let out to

the petitioners herein for non-residential purpose. Therefore, if the landlord

wanted to occupy the premises for his residential purpose, it shall be

restored. If the landlord using a portion for residential purpose wants

another portion of the said premises under occupation of the tenant for non-

residential purpose then the landlord has to proceed under Section

103(3)(a)(iii) for owner's occupation and not under Section 10(3)(c) of the

Act which deals with the additional accommodation for the existing usage

of the landlord. Therefore, the petitions for eviction cannot be dismissed for

technical reasons and the right of the parties should not be prejudiced.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1649 & 2605 of 2015

5. Admittedly, the respondents have satisfied the conditions as

contemplated under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Further the petitioners

are running their business which is non residential in character. Therefore,

the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the eviction petitions

on the ground of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease

and Rent Control) Act. Further the respondents have right to choose the

portion which is suit for them. It is also seems to be one of the boanfide

reason for own occupation. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or

infirmity in the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate

Authority.

6. Further the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought

sufficient time to vacate the premises. Considering the above submission,

the petitioners are directed to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant

possession to the respondents within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this Order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1649 & 2605 of 2015

7. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed.

21.01.2021

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order

rts

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1649 & 2605 of 2015

To

1. The VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1649 & 2605 of 2015

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

rts

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1649 & 2605 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015

21.01.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter