Madras High Court
Sahubar Saddiq vs Ayesha Rajathi on 31 January, 2022
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.449 of 2022
1.Sahubar Saddiq
2.Jafarullah ... Petitioners
-vs-
Ayesha Rajathi ... Respondent
Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to call for the records and set aside
the fair and decreetal order of the learned Subordinate Judge,
Manapparai dated 25.08.2021 in R.C.A.No.8 of 2020 as confirmed by the
learned Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Manapparai in
R.C.O.P.No.02 of 2018 dated 14.02.2019 and allow this civil revision
petition with costs throughout.
_________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.J.M.Hassanul Bazari
For Respondent : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj
ORDER
The tenants are the revision petitioners before this Court. The
revision is filed challenging the concurrent judgment of the authorities
below ordering eviction on the ground of owner's occupation. The
respondent/landlady had filed RCOP No.2 of 2018 for evicting the
petitioners/ tenants on the ground of wilful default as well as owner's
occupation. The rent controller has held against the landlady for eviction
on the ground of wilful default and there is no appeal against the same.
However, with reference to the owner's occupation, both the authorities
below held in favour of the landlady and had directed eviction.
2.The facts in brief, which are necessary for disposing of the above
revision petitions, are as follows with reference to the requirement for
owner's occupation:-
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
(i) In paragraph No.10 of the petition in RCOP No.2 of 2018, the
respondent had stated that her husband was carrying on business in
footwear under the name and style of “New Shafi Traders” at Door No.
13/1 Hajiyar Complex, Thirumalai Street, Manaparai Town as a tenant
under one Nahmath Ralina of Chennai. The respondent would contend
that since her husband was doing his business in a rented premises and as
they are not occupying a non-residential premises of their own for doing
business, the petition premises was required.
(ii) In response to the above contention, the first petitioner/tenant
has set out the following defense in paragraph No.6, which reads as
follows:-
6.It is the highest degree of falsehood to contend that
the petitioner needs the petition shop for own occupation. It
is also denied that the petitioner and her husband own no
property in the Municipal limit. In fact, this respondent is
running shop and this shop is the source of livelihood.
Except this business, the petitioners have got no other
source of income. The petitioner has filed this petition only
as a counter act to the legal proceedings initiated by these
respondents.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
(iii) The Rent Controller by her order dated 14.02.2019 had
ordered eviction on the ground of owner's occupation and rejected the
request for eviction on the ground of wilful default. The learned Rent
Controller had taken note of the fact that the respondent had produced
the document to show that her husband was running business in the name
of “New Shafi Traders” at the address stated in the petition. The said
document has been marked as Ex.P3, which is the GST Reregistration
Certificate. The Rent Controller has also relied on the admission of the
revision petitioner /tenant as RW1 that the respondent's husband was
running his business in another shop. When a question was posed as to
whether the property belongs to the respondent or her husband, the
answer was not in the affirmative or negative, but the answer was that he
did know who owned the premises. The learned Rent Controller held
that the landlady had proved her contention of her husband running the
business in a rented premises and that the petition premises being their
own they were entitled to seek eviction for their own occupation. The
order was taken up on appeal by the tenants in RCA No.8 of 2020 on the
file of the Sub Court (Appellate Authority), Manaparai. The landlady has
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
not challenged the order rejecting the petition in RCOP No.02 of 2018
on the ground of wilful default. The Appellate Authority has also
concurred with the view taken by the Rent Controller and consequently,
dismissed the appeal. Challenging the concurrent orders, the revision
petitioners/ tenants are before this Court.
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners would
contend that the respondent has not proved her bona fides. He would
submit that the respondent's husband is running a business in a 500 sq.ft.
ground floor with godown on the first floor, whereas the petition
premises is only an extent of 104 sq.ft and there was no question of
accommodating the bigger shop into a smaller extent. That apart, the
respondent had not let in any evidence whatsoever to prove her case and
being the petitioner, she was duty bound to prove her case.
4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/landlady would submit that the respondent had proved the
factum of her husband running a business and the fact that the business
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
was being run in rented premises and it is also be admitted by the
tenants. Since the business was doing in a rented premises, it was well
within her right to seek eviction of the tenant for her occupation. He
would submit that both the Courts below have considered the evidence
and passed orders and the same are sustainable.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the records.
6.The arguments advanced by the revision petitioner though
attractive has to however be rejected since this defence has not been
taken by the tenants either in their counter or in their evidence. Neither
was it raised before the Appellate Appellate Authority. For the first time,
this argument is raised before this Court. In the light of the above, the
argument has to be rejected. Admittedly, the respondent's husband is
running a business in footwear and to prove the same, Ex P3 has been
marked. The running of the business by the respondent's husband, has
not been disputed by the revision petitioners/tenants. The landlady has
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
clearly deposed that the business is being run in a rented premises and
that the respondent/ landlady was not occupying any other property
belonging to her and therefore, the landlady has proved her requirement
for her own occupation. It has to be borne in mind that the proceeding
before the Rent Controller is summary in nature and strict evidence, as
contemplated before the Civil Court, is not required. Therefore, there is
a substantial compliance of the requirement by the landlady and
accordingly, the civil revision petition fails.
7.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming
the order passed by the Authorities Below. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
8.After the orders were dictated, the learned counsel for the
petitioners/ tenants would seek a year's time for vacating the premises,
which was immediately rejected by the senior counsel on instructions.
However, the Court suggested that six months time be provided to the
tenants to vacate the premises. The landlady was also agreeable to the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
same. Therefore, while dismissing the civil revision petition, the tenants
are granted six months time to vacate the premises from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order and it is needless to state that the tenant
shall continue to pay the rents without default and any breach of the
above, would entitle the landlady to initiate execution proceedings.
31.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
cp
Note:-
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.
To:-
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Manapparai.
2.The Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif,
Manapparai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
P.T.ASHA, J.
cp
C.R.P.(MD)No.90 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.449 of 2022
Dated: 31.01.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
