Madras High Court
K.Rajan vs D.Suryakanth on 11 January, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.3306 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No.3306 of 2015 and
MP.No.1 of 2015
K.Rajan ..Petitioner
Vs.
D.Suryakanth ..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1961 against the order
and decree of the VII Small Causes Court cum Rent Control Appellate
Authority, Chennai in RCA.No.455 of 2010 dated 08.01.2015, in
confirming the judgment and decree in RCOP.No.1409 of 2008 dated
01.06.2010 on the file of the XII Court of Small Causes cum Rent
Controller, Madras.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Manickavel
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the judgment
and decree passed in RCA.No.455 of 2010 dated 08.01.2015 thereby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.3306 of 2015
confirming the judgment and decree passed in RCOP.No.1409 of 2008
dated 01.06.2010 on the file of the XII Court of Small Causes cum
Rent Controller, Madras thereby allowed the petition for eviction.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondent filed petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement
to shift and carry his own business. The respondent averred that the
petitioner is a tenant for the petition premises and leased out the same for
non residential purpose for the monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-. The respondent is
doing Pharmaceutical business under the name and style of Lavisha
Pharmaceutical, Sun Pharmaceutical and Sri Nursery Garden in a rented
premises. After purchasing of the petition premises, he wanted to shift his
business to his own premises to carry on all his business. He further
submitted that the respondent denied the relationship of tenant and landlord
between the petitioner and the respondent herein. In fact, the petitioner has
been put in possession of the petition premises by one Kasthuri, the erstwhile
owner of the premises by virtue of lease deed dated 01.03.2005 on receipt of
Rs.5,00,000/- to be refunded in one lumpsum without interest on the expiry
of five years. During the said term of five years, no rent need be paid by the
respondent and on expiry of five years and upon three months notice and
upon refund of Rs.5,00,000/- in one lumpsum lease shall terminate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.3306 of 2015
Therefore, no rental due from the petitioner to the respondent herein. He
further submitted that it is nothing but usufructuary mortgage and as such
there is no landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the
erstwhile owner by name Kasthuri. As per the deal, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
was duly received by her and only on return of the said amount, that too in
one lumpsum, the said deed shall terminate and the question of demanding
surrender of possession will arise. Admittedly, the respondent or erstwhile
owner of the premises did not return the amount which was received by her.
Even then, the court below ordered for eviction without considering the above
facts.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile landlady
Mrs.E.Kasthuri. Thereafter, the respondent purchased the petition premises
vide registered sale deed dated 24.11.2006 vide document No.5003 of 2006.
After leasing out the property in favour of the petitioner herein, the erstwhile
landlady mortgaged the property with the Muthialpet Benefit Fund Limited.
Thereafter she failed to redeem the mortgage with the mortgagee. As per
the order passed by the Hon'ble First Division Bench of this Court through
auction, the respondent purchased the property and sale deed was executed
in his favour. Therefore, after purchase of the said property, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.3306 of 2015
was duly informed and directed to pay rent directly to the respondent herein.
Whereas, the petitioner colluded with the erstwhile landlady, namely
E.Kasthuri did not pay any rent to the respondent herein. Further he
submitted that even after purchasing the petition premises, the respondent
runs his business in the rental premises and as such he filed petition for
eviction for owner's occupation.
4. Heard Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.R.Manickavel, the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The petitioner is tenant by the lease deed entered between the
erstwhile owner of the petition premises and the petitioner herein dated
01.03.2005. On perusal of the lease deed he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to
the erstwhile landlady and the interest for the said sum will be treated as
monthly rent for period of 5 years. After completion of five years, when the
amount is returned to the petitioner, the lease deed shall terminate. While
being so, the said Kasthuri mortgaged the said property with Muthialpet
Benefit Fund and thereafter failed to redeem the property. In the court
auction sale, the respondent purchased the said property for valid sale
consideration for the registered sale deed dated 24.11.2006 vide document
No.5003 of 2006. Thereafter, the same was duly informed to the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.3306 of 2015
and even then, the petitioner failed to pay any rent to the respondent herein.
It is also to be noted that the petitioner also filed suit before this Court in
CS.No.866 of 2008 for recovery of money from the erstwhile landlady and it is
pending. According to the respondent, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.5,000/- as monthly rent and permitted to run the tailoring business in the
name and style of Aristo Tailors. Even then, the petitioner failed to pay a
single pie to the respondent from the year 2006 onwards. Therefore, the
respondent also runs his business in a rented premises. Therefore, he caused
notice for payment of arrears of rent. In fact, the respondent filed petition for
eviction on the ground of wilful default as well as owner's occupation. The
court below dismissed the ground of wilful default since admittedly the
petitioner entered in to a lease agreement with the erstwhile owner and he
paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. In the said lease agreement categorically stated
that the interest will be adjusted towards monthly rent.
6. In respect of owner's occupation, the respondent adequately
established by documentary evidence that he is running his business in the
rented premises. Therefore, the respondent is entitled for eviction on the
ground of owner's occupation. Accordingly eviction is ordered on the ground
of owner's occupation. That apart, the petitioner admittedly did not pay even
single paise to respondent from the year 2006, namely the date of purchase
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.3306 of 2015
of the petition premises by the respondent herein. Though wilful default could
not attract as against the petitioner since the erstwhile landlady received a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have paid
the rent as demanded by the respondent herein. Therefore, this Court finds
no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the court below, and the
civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks further time to evict petition premises due to covid 19
pandemic circumstances.
7. Considering the above submission, the petitioner shall vacate the
petition premises within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to
costs.
11.01.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.3306 of 2015
To
1.The VII Small Causes Court cum
Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai
2.The XII Court of Small Causes cum Rent Controller,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.3306 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
CRP.NPD.No.3306 of 2015
11.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
