T.P. Pandi Selvi vs N.F. Ansari Mohammed
2021 Latest Caselaw 22948 Mad

                                                                              CRP (NPD) No.2513 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 24.11.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                             CRP (NPD) No.2513 of 2021
                                             and CMP No.18884 of 2021

                     T.P. Pandi Selvi                                              ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs

                     N.F. Ansari Mohammed                                          ... Respondent


                     Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu

                     Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the Judgment and Decree

                     dated 16.09.2021 passed in R.C.A. No.786 of 2017 on the file of the VII

                     Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai confirming the order, dated 12.09.2017

                     made in R.C.O.P. No.506 of 2015 on the file of XII Judge Small Causes

                     Court, Chennai.


                                          For Petitioner        : Mr.B.R. Shankaralingam

                                          For Respondent        : Mr. Nazar Hussain
                                                                  for Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed


                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               CRP (NPD) No.2513 of 2021

                                                        ORDER

The tenant challenges the orders of eviction on the ground of

additional accommodation passed in RCOP No.506 of 2015 as confirmed in

RCA No.786 of 2017.

2. The landlord sought for eviction on the ground that he requires

the petition premises, which is a non-residential one, for his business which

is being carried on in a rented premises. The landlord admitted that he is

residing in the first floor of the petition premises and he is also in

occupation of a portion of the ground floor which is being used as a

godown. He wanted the petition premises for his showroom which is now

situate in No.63, MC Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai 600 021.

3. The said claim of the landlord was resisted by the tenant

contending that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide and the

landlord is having a textile godown in the ground floor. It was also

contended that the area that is in occupation of the landlord would be

sufficient for his business. The tenant also pointed out that the hardship that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP (NPD) No.2513 of 2021

would be caused to the tenant would outweigh the advantage that would

accrue the landlord.

4. At Trial the landlord was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P4

were marked and one S.Tirupathi was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R5

were marked.

5. The learned Rent Controller on a consideration of the evidence

on record, rejected the defence of the tenant and concluded that the

requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It was also found that the hardship

that would be caused to the tenant would not outweigh the advantage that

accrued to the landlord. Upon such finding, the learned Rent Controller

allowed the application for eviction and ordered eviction. Aggrieved, the

tenant preferred an appeal in RCA No.786 of 2017.

6. The Appellate Authority on a reconsideration of the evidence

on record, concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and

dismissed the Appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP (NPD) No.2513 of 2021

7. I have heard Mr.B.R.Shankaralingam, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Nazar Hussain, learned counsel

appearing for the Caveator.

8. Mr.B.R.Shankaralingam, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would invite my attention to the evidence of the landlord and

contend that the landlord is already in occupation of about 800 Sq.ft. space

in the ground floor of the premises, therefore his requirement of the petition

premises measuring about 170 sq.ft is not bonafide. He would also submit

that the space available with the landlord would be sufficient for him to

carry on his business.

9. I am afraid such contention is not open to the tenant. He cannot

dictate as to which portion should the landlord to occupy. This Court as

well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court have reiterated that it is not for the

tenant to dictate as to how the landlord should use his premises. In an

eviction proceedings, particularly under Section 10 (3)(C) of the Act, the

Court has to see whether the claim of the landlord is bonafide and whether

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP (NPD) No.2513 of 2021

the advantage that would accrue the landlord would outweigh the hardship

that would be caused to the tenant. Both the authorities below have

adverted to the minimum requirements of the provision and have recorded

their findings based on evidence. The claim of the landlord that he has been

carrying on business in a rented premises has also been proved with

substantial evidence. The landlord is carrying on business in a rented

premises and he seeks eviction of his own building where he has a godown

also. Such a need cannot be said to be malafide. Both the authorities under

the Act, have analysed the evidence and concluded that the advantage that

would accrue the landlord would outweigh the hardship that would be

caused to the tenant. Being a revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, the scope of the proceedings and the

power of this Court to interfere with such factual findings, is limited and I

cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute my own conclusion, even if

such conclusion is possible. I, therefore, do not see any merits in the

revision. The revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP (NPD) No.2513 of 2021

10. Mr.B.R.Shankaralinge, would seek some time to vacate the

premises.

11. Considering the fact that the petitioner is carrying on business

in the premises for more than 10 years, I am of the opinion that she should

be granted some time to vacate and handover possession to the landlord

without driving the landlord to execution proceedings. The

petitioner/tenant is granted eight months time to vacate and handover

possession subject to filing of an affidavit of undertaking to vacate and hand

over possession on or before 31.07.2022. Such affidavit of undertaking

shall be filed in this Court on or before 10.12.2021. If such affidavit is not

filed by the said date, it will be open to the landlord to execute the order of

eviction as if no time has been granted by this Court. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

24.11.2021 vum Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP (NPD) No.2513 of 2021

To:

1. The VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP (NPD) No.2513 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

vum

CRP (NPD) No.2513 of 2021 and CMP No.18884 of 2021

24.11.2021

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