Madras High Court

Chandramohan vs K.M.Nowshad on 2 March, 2023

                                                                                  C.R.P.No.502 of 2020

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 02.03.2023

                                                        CORAM:

                           THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                                   C.R.P.No.502 of 2020

                     Chandramohan                                                     ...Petitioner

                                                            vs.

                     K.M.Nowshad                                                    ...Respondent

                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu

                     Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the Judgment and

                     Decree dated 31.07.2019 made in R.C.A.No.47/2015 on the file of the

                     Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore confirming the

                     Fair and Final Order dated 02.02.2015 made in R.C.O.P.No.36/2011 on

                     the file of the Court of the Learned Rent Controller-cum-1st Additional

                     District Munsif, Coimbatore.



                                  For Petitioner        :     Mr.R.Nandhakumar


                                  For Respondent        :     Mr.B.Vijaya Kumar




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/8
                                                                                      C.R.P.No.502 of 2020

                                                           ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment

and Decree dated 31.07.2019 made in R.C.A.No.47 of 2015 on the file of

the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore confirming the Fair and

Final Order dated 02.02.2015 made in R.C.O.P.No.36 of 2011 on the file

of the Learned Rent Controller-cum-1stAdditional District Munsif,

Coimbatore.

2.The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2009, the petitioner

has filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.316 of 2009 before the Rent

Controller, Coimbatore against the respondent herein praying for fixation

of fair rent for the petition mentioned premises. On 17.04.2017, the Rent

Controller was pleased to order the said petition by fixing a sum of

Rs.16,180/- as fair rent for the petition mentioned premises from

December 2009. As the respondent fails to pay the arrears and enhanced

rent fixed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.532

of 2017 before the District Court, Coimbatore for recovery of arrears of

rent for a sum of Rs.11,93,280/- along with interest at 18% p.a. etc. Even

after the institution of the said suit, the respondent has not come forward

to pay the arrears of rent. On the other hand, the respondent preferred an

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

C.R.P.No.502 of 2020

appeal against the order passed by the Rent Controller fixing fair rent and

also a petition was filed in R.C.O.P.No.187 of 2017 before the Rent

Controller, Coimbatore praying to permit him to deposit a sum of

Rs.4,000/- per month irrespective of fair rent of Rs.16,180/- fixed by the

Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.316 of 2009. As a counter case to the suit

for arrears of rent, the respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.539 of

2018 before the District Munsif Coimbatore against the petitioner herein

praying for a recovery of water charges from the petitioner for a sum of

Rs.64,800/- along with interest etc.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below

failed to see that the petitioner has satisfied the ingredients of Section 10

(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,

1960 for eviction of the respondent from the petition premises for his

own use and occupation. He submitted that the Court below ought to

have seen that the petition mentioned property is a shop situated in the

ground floor and the second floor, are all offices. The petitioner herein

was planning to start telecommunication business for which, the petition

mentioned property which is situated in the ground floor is suitable for

establishing a showroom and therefore, he bonafidely requires the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.502 of 2020

for commencing business. He further submitted that the Court below

failed to see that the respondent/tenant in his evidence in RW1 clearly

admits that the petition premise is the only suitable place to have a

service centre etc.

4.Learned counsel for the respondent has filed a counter in

R.C.O.P.No.36 of 2011 wherein it has been stated that all the allegations

made in the affidavit of the petition and the petitioner has to prove the

averments made in the affidavit of the petition with strict proof except

those that are all admitted by the respondent, the other allegations has to

be proved by the petitioner. He submitted that the petition is false,

frivolous, vexatious and is not maintainable both in law and on the facts

of the case.

5.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for

the respondent and perused the material available on record.

6.On going through the typed set of papers, it is seen that in the

year 2009, the petitioner has filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.316 of 2009

before the Rent Controller, Coimbatore against the respondent herein https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.502 of 2020

praying for fixation of fair rent for the petition mentioned premises. On

17.04.2017, the Rent Controller was pleased to order the said petition by

fixing a sum of Rs.16,180/- as fair rent for the petition mentioned

premises from December 2009. As the respondent fails to pay the arrears

and enhanced rent fixed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner has filed a

suit in O.S.No.532 of 2017 before the District Court, Coimbatore for

recovery of arrears of rent for a sum of Rs.11,93,280/- along with interest

at 18% per annum. Even after filing the suit, the arrears of rent has not

been paid by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.36

of 2011 for eviction of the respondent and the same was dismissed by

R.C.O.P. Court by order dated 02.02.2015. Against which, R.C.A. was

filed by the petitioner. By order dated 31.07.2019, the learned Principal

Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore had dismissed the Rent Control Appeal

with cost.

7.The trial Court and the Appellate Court have failed to see that

the landlord requires the premises for his own use or he can do any

business in his premises.

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

C.R.P.No.502 of 2020

8.This Court is of the view that the Court cannot dictate terms to

the landlord as to which business he has to carry on. The tenant is sitting

on the premises for the past 22 years. This Court is of the view that the

tenant has not shown any bonafideness as to why he should not be

evicted.

9.It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of Section 21(2)(g)

of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord

and Tenants Act, 2017 hereunder:

Section 21(2)(g)that the premises let for residential or non-residential purpose are required by the landlord for occupation for residential or non- residential purposes for himself or for any member of his family or for any person for whose benefit the premises were held and the landlord or such person is not in possession of any suitable accommodation within the same urban area.

10.As per the aforesaid Act, this Court feels that the landlord

requires the premises for his own use or he can do any business or he can

keep it vacant to store dumping for unwanted materials, no one can https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.502 of 2020

question the landlord. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on

either side, this Court is of the view that the Court can order for eviction.

But, however, since the tenant has been doing business in the said

premises for the past 22 years, this Court is of the view that sufficient

time has to be given to the tenant for looking out for another place.

Hence, three months time is granted to the tenant to vacate and handover

the said premises to the landlord on or before 30.06.2023.