Madras High Court
G.Radhakrishnan (Died) vs M.Murugan (Deceased) on 1 March, 2024
C.R.P.No.3295 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:01.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.No.3295 of 2019
and CMP.No.21401 of 2019
1.G.Radhakrishnan (died)
2.G.R.Madhakrishnan
(sole petitioner died. Petitioner 2 is brought on record as Lrs
of the deceased sole petitioner viz., G.Radhakrishnan vide
Court order dated 04.01.2024 made in CMP.No.21340 of 2022
in CRP.No.3295 of 2019)
... Petitioners
vs.
M.Murugan (deceased)
M.Manohar
... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu
Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960) praying to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 13.08.2019 made in RCA.No.605 of 2016 by the learned
Appellate VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai as confirmed in the
judgment and decree dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned VIII Judge
Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCA.No.605 of 2016 pending disposal of
the above revision petition.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3295 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan
Senior Advocate
for M.Kamalanathan.
For Respondent : No Appearance
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant challenging the
order of eviction passed against him on the ground of owner's occupation.
2. The respondent's father originally filed a Rent Control
eviction petition against the petitioners on the ground of wilful default and
owner's occupation. Pending original petition father of the respondent died
and respondent was brought on record as his legal representative and
proceeded with the eviction petition. The learned Rent Controller found that
the requirements of the respondent on the ground of owner's occupation was
bonafide one and ordered eviction on that ground. The claim of the
respondent on the ground of wilful default was negatived. Aggrieved by the
eviction order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Rent Control
Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the
concurrent findings against him, the tenant is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/tenant vehemently contended that the respondent/landlord sought
for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation on the averment that he
intends to start steel business in the demised premises. However, he failed to
lead any evidence to show that he had taken atleast one step towards starting
the business. In such circumstances, the requirement of the respondent is not
bonafide one. The learned counsel by taking this Court to the evidence of
PW.1 submitted that he had clearly admitted that he failed to take any step
towards start of the business and hence the eviction order is liable to be
dismissed. He also submitted that though in the petition the respondent
claimed that he intended to start steel business, in his chief examination, he
deposed as if he wanted to start plastic and steel business. In view of
contradictions in his stand the Courts below ought not to have ordered
eviction. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on
the following judgments:
(i) P.N.Raju Chettiar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented
by the Secretary, Home Department (Accommodation Controller) and others
reported in 1970 (1) MLJ 249;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) Muniammal and others Vs. R.Sundara Mahalingam reported
in 1990 (2) MLJ186;
(iii) Pooludaiyar Chettiar Vs. Gani reported in (2003) 2 MLJ
704;
(iv) R.Sudhandhira Devi and others Vs. K.Navanithakrishna
reported in (2005) 4 MLJ 127.
4. Though respondent is served and his name appears in the
cause list, there is no representation for respondent.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners and perused the typed set of papers.
6. The respondent herein sought for eviction on the ground of
owner's occupation on a specific averment that he intends to start the stainless
steel business in the petition mentioned premises. He had also averred that he
was not in occupation of any other non residential building in the very same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
city. When respondent was examined as P.W.1, he deposed that demised
premises was required for plastic and steel business. He further deposed due
to his father's illness, he could not take any further steps.
7. The petitioner herein was examined as RW.1. During the
course of his cross examination he deposed that the respondent was already
married and he got children. He clearly admitted that demised premises is
located in a business locality, wherein sale of steel and stainless steel articles
and plastics were carried on. He deposed that to start steel business one has
to get licence from Corporation and get registration from Sales tax Office.
He specifically admitted that only if the business premises is vacant, Sales tax
registration could be obtained. He also admitted that only if the business
premises is vacant, Corporation would grant licence. Moreover, he had gone
to the extent of admitting that the respondent could take steps towards start of
business only if he vacates the premises and hand over vacant possession.
The relevant portion of his evidence in vernacular is extracted below:
``kndhfiu vdf;F bjhpa[k;/ mth; bjhHpy; vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy/
kndhfh; vd;gtUf;F jpUkzk; Mfp kidtp. Fhe;ijfs; vy;yhk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
,Uf;fpwhh;fs; vd;why; bjhpa[k;/ mth; brhe;jkhf bjhHpy;
Muk;gpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W ,lk; nfl;L ,Uf;fpwhh; vd;why;
rhpjhd;/ ehd; tpahghuk; bra;ak[ ; gFjpapy; vth; rpyt; h; kw;Wk; !
O; y; bghUl;fs; gpsh!;of; tpw;gid bra;a[k; filfs; ,Ug;gjhf
brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;/ kDjhuUf;F vth; rpyt; h; kw;Wk; !;Oy;
bghUl;fs; gpsh!;of; tpw;gid bra;tjw;F bghUl;fSk; gzKk;
,Ue;jhy; nghJkhdJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ khefuhl;rpapy; chpkk;
th';f ntz;Lk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ tpw;gid thp mYtyfj;jpy;
gjpt[ bra;J rhd;Wfs; bgwntz;Lk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ,lk;
fhypahf ,Uf;fpwJ vd;W Twpdhy; jhd; tpwg; id thp
mYtyfj;jpy; mDkjp bfhLg;ghh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ brd;id
khefuhl;rpaplk; chpkk; bgwntz;Lk; vd;why; kDjhuh; fhyp ,lk;
kDjhuhplk; ,Ue;jhy; jhd; mDkjp bfhLg;ghh;fs; vd;why;
rhpjhd;/ ehd; kD fl;olj;ij fhyp bra;J bfhLj;jhy; kDjhuh;
bjhHpy; bjhl';f kw;w Kaw;rpfspy; <Lgl Koa[k; vd;why; rhpjhd;/
8. A reading of RW1's evidence would suggest that the
respondent is already married and is having children, therefore, there is a
bonafide requirement for him to earn some income by starting the business or
otherwise. Originally the petition was filed by his father stating that demised
premises was required for starting steel business for his son (respondent).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pending eviction proceedings, the respondent's father died and he was
brought on record. In the light of the admission made by RW.1, the
respondent is married and is having children, the requirement to start
business appeared to be bonafide. Though, the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners vehemently contended that unless landlord proves that he has
taken atleast one step towards start of the business, the requirement cannot be
treated as bonafide one by relying on above said cases, in the case on hand,
admissions made by the petitioner/tenant as RW.1 goes otherwise. The
petitioner as RW.1 clearly admitted that the respondent could not take any
steps towards start of business unless he vacate the premises and hand over
vacant possession. He clearly admitted that licence from Corporation and
registration from Sales Tax Office could be obtained only after getting vacant
possession of the demised premises. In such circumstances, the absence of
concrete steps on the part of the respondent towards start of business may not
be put against him, in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in
the light of above mentioned admissions by RW.1. The respondent in his
evidence also deposed that he had expertise in steel business by joining
Mahalakshmi Enterprises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. It is settled law, in order to get eviction on the ground of
owner's occupation, the landlord need not carry on business actually in the
demised premises. If the intention to start business is bonafide, the same is
sufficient. It would be appropriate to rely on the decision of this Court
reported in Manu/TN/0776/2003 in Pooludaiyar Chettiar Vs. Gani,
wherein, this Court held that while considering the eviction petition on the
ground of owner's occupation what is required is the honest desire to do
business in his own premises. If landlord failed to occupy the premises
within one month from the date of obtaining possession, the tenant may also
apply for restoration under Section 10 (5) (a) of the Act. The relevant
observation reads as follows:
“14. While interpreting this provision, S.S.Subramani,J.
in M/S.BOSTON v. AKBAR 1998 (I) M.L.J.,270) held that the law
does not say that the landlord should always continue to do
business only in a rented premises even if he is entitled to get
possession of his own building and nobody can doubt the claim of
the landlord especially when he has no other building of his own.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
What is required is the honest desire to do business in his own
premises. In this context, I may also add here that if the landlord
does not himself occupy the premises within one month of the
date of obtaining possession or vacates it, then the tenant may
apply for restoration, vide Section 10(v)(a) of the Act. The
landlord would also be inviting action for penalty under Section
33(1-A) of the Act. Therefore, there is no justification to presume
that the object of the landlord was only to have the tenant evicted
or to view his request with distrust and suspicion. If he does not
act bona fide, the relief of restoration is always available to the
tenant. The right of the tenant to squat over the property
belonging to another person cannot be put above the right of the
land owner to get possession of the property bona fide for his
own use.”
10. The rent controller as well as Appellate Authority by proper
appreciation of evidence available on record, especially the admissions of
petitioner as RW.1, came to a factual conclusion that requirement of the
respondent landlord was bonafide one. I do not see any perversity in the
findings of fact recorded by the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere
with concurrent findings of the facts. Accordingly, the Civil Revision
Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.03.2024
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The VIII Judge Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
01.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
After disposal of the civil revision petition, the learned counsel
for the petitioner/tenant made a request seeking time for vacating the
premises. The learned counsel submitted that petitioner is carrying on steel
business in the demises premises and in order to find alternative
accommodation, the time may be given for vacating the premises. He also
submitted that as on today, he has been paying the rent at the rate of
Rs.20,000/-per month.
2. In view of the fact that the petitioner is carrying on business in
a non-residential building, time is granted till 31.08.2024 for vacating the
premises and hand over vacant possession to the respondent without driving
him to the execution proceedings on following conditions:-
a) The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking that he
would vacate and hand over vacant possession to the respondent on or before
31.08.2024 without driving the respondent to execution proceedings within a
period of two weeks from today.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
b) The petitioner shall continue to pay the agreed rent at the rate
of Rs.20,000/- per month starting from February 2024 till the date of vacating
the premises on or before 10th of succeeding month.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nr
3. If the petitioner fails to comply with any one of the
conditions mentioned above, the benefit of time will not enure to him. The
respondent is at liberty to proceed with execution proceedings.
01.03.2024
nr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
