Madras High Court
B.Elumalai vs S.Prathap Raju on 18 August, 2023
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3601 & 3604 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3601 & 3604 of 2019
and C.M.P.Nos.23616 & 23620 of 2019
B.Elumalai .. Petitioner in C.R.P.No.3601 of 2019
K.Manohar .. Petitioner in C.R.P.No.3604 of
2019
Vs.
S.Prathap Raju .. Respondent in both CRPs.
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section
25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as
Amended under Act 23 of 1973, against the judgment and decree made in
R.C.A.Nos.846 & 847 of 2017 dated 11.07.2019 by the learned VII
Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, reversing the judgment and
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3601 & 3604 of 2019
decree in R.C.O.P.Nos.506 & 507 of 2016 dated 28.07.2017 on the file of
the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dismissing the
said petitions filed by the respondent for eviction under Section 10(3)(c)
of the Act.
In both CRPs.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saravanan
For Respondent : Mr.Y.Arul Manickam
COMMON ORDER
The revisions arise against the judgment in R.C.A.Nos.846 & 847
of 2017 dated 11.07.2019 in reversing the order and decree in
R.C.O.P.Nos.506 & 507 of 2016 dated 28.07.2017.
2. The jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent as
the tenants and landlord is not denied. The fact that the respondent is
running a hospital in the same premises is also not denied. It is the case
of the landlord that there is only a narrow access from the road to reach
his clinic that is being run by him in the rear portion. This is denied by
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3601 & 3604 of 2019
the tenants on the ground that they have been in occupation of the
property for nearly 33 years. They plead that if eviction is ordered, they
would be put to irreparable loss and prejudice.
3. The factum that the patients, visiting the respondent's clinic
have to park their vehicles on the road causing inconvenience to the
public has to be taken note of by me. This factum has been specifically
pleaded by the landlord and had found acceptance before the lower
Appellate Court.
4. The further fact is that the tenants had agreed to vacate and
handover the possession of the property in the year 2012 itself, but
continued to be in possession shows their willingness to vacate the
premises. The landlord, being a Doctor, would obviously want to have a
convenient parking for his patients so that his practice improves and the
patients are not driven away due to lack of a parking area. The landlord
has only 4.5 feet passage way to his clinic is a finding of fact entered into
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3601 & 3604 of 2019
by the lower Appellate Court. I am able to visualise the fact that 4.5 feet
is inadequate even for a stretcher to be brought in. It is possible that the
Doctor might attend to emergencies and at that stage, he cannot come on
to the road and treat the patients.
5. The petitioners, who are the tenants can always relocate their
business elsewhere and their loyal clients would always follow them. It is
not as if the landlord wants to evict the petitioners and put some one else
in possession of the property. It is for the own use of the Doctor, who is
running a clinic and the relative hardship that will be caused by not
evicting the petitioners from the premises would be more to the landlord.
The business of the tenants would, no doubt, suffer a bump, but the same
can be rectified, if it is relocated elsewhere.
6. For a petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, all that I have to see is
whether it is bonafide and whether the hardship that will be caused by the
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3601 & 3604 of 2019
tenant will be more than the hardship that will be caused to the landlord.
On the factum of “bonafides”, I am convinced that a Doctor running a
clinic is entitled to enjoy the space that he requires and it is not for the
tenants to dictate how the landlord must use his property.
7. On the aspect of the relative hardship also, I am of the view that
the tenants would not be affected so much than the suffering of the
patients, the public as well as the landlord himself. Therefore, the order of
eviction passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and
the same necessarily has to be confirmed.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners at this point requests that
sufficient time be granted for the purpose of vacating and handing over
the possession and for the said purpose, he requests nine months time.
9. The learned counsel for the landlord resists the same and says
that the landlord has been suffering from the year 2012 and therefore, he
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3601 & 3604 of 2019
says that not more than three months time be granted.
10. However, I feel if six months time is granted on filing of an
undertaking affidavit, the benefit of time can be granted to the tenants.
The tenants in both C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3601 and 3604 of 2019 are granted
six months time on filing of an affidavit of undertaking that they will not
default in payment of rents and they will handover peaceful vacant
possession of the property to the landlord on or before 01.03.2024. Time
for filing the affidavits is granted till 10.09.2023.
11. With the above directions, both the Civil Revision Petitions
stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
18.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3601 & 3604 of 2019
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Kj
To
1.XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3601 & 3604 of 2019
and C.M.P.Nos.23616 & 23620 of 2019
18.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
