K.Sreedharan vs G.Loganatha Pandian
2022 Latest Caselaw 708 Mad

                                                                              C.R.P(NPD)No.32 of 2022
                                                                               and CMP.No.203 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                 DATED: 12.01.2022
                                                      CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                             C.R.P(NPD)No.32 of 2022
                                                      and
                                               CMP.No.203 of 2022


                     K.Sreedharan                                                      ..Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

                     G.Loganatha Pandian                                             ..Respondent


                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Lease
                     and Rent Control Act, against the decree and judgment passed in
                     RCA.No.55 of 2021 dated 25.11.2021 by the IX-Court of Small Causes,
                     Chennai by confirming the order and decreetal order passed in
                     RCOP.No.846 of 2018 dated 30.11.2020 by XVI-Judge, Small Causes
                     Court, Chennai.


                                         For Petitioner     : Mr.G.Madhan Raj




                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 C.R.P(NPD)No.32 of 2022
                                                                                  and CMP.No.203 of 2022

                                                         ORDER

Challenge in this revision is to the order of eviction passed under

Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)

Act.

2.The tenancy and the quantum of rent is admitted. The premises

is a non-residential shop. The landlord sought for eviction on the ground of

own use and occupation. The landlord claimed that he is 40 years old and

being unemployed he required the premises to start a provision store. The

petition premises measures about 155 square feet. The tenant resisted the

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

tenant is only dependent on the business for his livelihood and sought for

dismissal of the petition.

3.Before the Rent Controller, the landlord was examined as PW1

And Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. The tenant was examined as RW1 and

Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. The learned Rent Controller, upon

consideration of the evidence on record found that the requirement of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD)No.32 of 2022 and CMP.No.203 of 2022

landlord is bonafide and directed eviction. The learned Rent Controller took

note of the fact that the tenant has admitted that he had agreed to vacate

within two years in the year 2015. Aggireved, the tenant preferred an appeal

in RCA.No.55 of 2021. The learned Appellate Authority on a re-

examination of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the

learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

4.Mr.C.Madhan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently contend that the Authorities under the Tamilnadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act did not consider the concept of

bonafide in a proper perspective. He would also point out that the landlord

has not made any preparation for commencement of business and therefore,

he is not entitled to eviction. I have considered the rival submissions.

5.Though Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is worded in such way that the

landlord should be carrying on business for seeking an order of eviction,

Courts have interpreted it to mean that preperations would be sufficient.

Admittedly, the landlord is 40 years old and he is unemployed. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD)No.32 of 2022 and CMP.No.203 of 2022

business, he wants to commence is only a provision store, which can be

established without any preparations. Once the intention of the landlord to

commence business is proved and bonafide is also proved, the steps that are

required to be taken to start business really fade into insignificance. Apart

from the above, the tenant himself admitted the bonafide need of the

landlord in his evidence. Toa specific suggestion in this regard, he has

answered that he agreed to vacate within two years in September 2015.

Therefore, I am unable to fault the Authorities for coming to a conclusion

that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide.

6.In the light of the above, I do not think, I can interfere with the

concurrent findings of the Authorities in a revision under Section 25 of the

Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Hence, this civil

revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD)No.32 of 2022 and CMP.No.203 of 2022

7.Considering the fact that the petitioner is carrying on business in

in the petition premises, nine months time is granted to the tenant to vacate

and handover possesion. The tenant shall vacate and handover possession

on or before 31.10.2022 without driving the landlord to the execution

proceeding. The tenant shall file an affidavit undertaking to vacate and

handover pssession by 31.10.2022 in this Court on or before 31.01.2022. If

such affidavit is not filed, the landlord is at liberty to execute the decree as if

no time has been granted.

12.01.2022 kkn

Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(NPD)No.32 of 2022 and CMP.No.203 of 2022

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

KKN

To-

1.The IX-Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2.The XVI-Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

C.R.P(NPD)No.32 of 2022 and CMP.No.203 of 2022

12.01.2022

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