Babita Agarwal v. Chandra Devi

ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of eviction passed by the Court below under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

¶2The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent/landlord filed rent control eviction petition on the ground of owners occupation. It was the specific case of the respondent that demised premisses was required for her son-Anil Ranka for his own use and occupation for financial business. The respondent issued a notice on 03.08.2011 calling upon the petitioner to vacate premises to enable her son to occupy the same. But the petitioner failed to vacate the premises and hence, the respondent was constrained to file a petition seeking eviction.

¶3Th eviction petition filed by the respondent on the ground of owners occupation was resisted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the respondent/landlord got a vacant shop in the very same premises. It is also further stated by the petitioner that the respondent is owning other non-residential building in the city and therefore, the present petition is not a bona fide one.

¶4The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, came to the conclusion that the requirement of the respondent is bona fide one and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred rent control appeal in R.C.A.No.663 of 2014 and the same was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶5The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking this Court to the evidence of PW.1 submitted that the respondent's son, who was examined as PW.1 clearly admitted that Shop No.3 available in the same premises was vacated three years back and the said admission clearly proved when eviction petition was filed by the respondent, Shop No.3 was vacant. Therefore, when a non-residential building belonging to the respondent was vacant on the date of filing of the petition, the eviction petition filed by the respondent cannot be treated as a bona fide one. The relevant portion of evidence of PW.1 during his cross examination reads as follows:- "kDbrhj;J te;j gpwF igdh!; bjhHpiy Tl;lhf bra;aa[s;nshk;/ cz;ikapy; kDbrhj;J vdf;F njitapy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ vd;Dila njit epahakhdJ ,y;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ Kjy; fil vjph;kDjhuh; trk; cs;sJ/ 2k; fil uhn$!;thp bkof;fy;!; fil/ 3tJ filapy; enue;jpu k';fs; elj;jp te;jhh;/ mth; jw;nghJ fhyp bra;Jtpl;lhh;/ enu';fpu k';fs; filia g{l;otpl;L brd;W tpl;lh; gpd;dh; ePjpkd;w K:yk; me;j filapy; Rthjpdj;ij ehd; bgw;nwd;/ me;j filapy; Rthjpdj;ij ve;j njjpapy; vLj;njd; vd;W vdf;F "hgfk; ,y;iy/ vdJ jhahh; jhd; me;j tHf;if bjhLj;jhh;/ me;j filia fhyp bra;J Rkhh; 3 tUl';fshfpwJ/ Rkhh; 1 ½ tUlj;jpw;F fil vz; 3 ia uhn$!;thp bkof;fy;Rf;F vdJ jfg;gdhh; thiliff;F bfhLj;jhh;/ "

¶6A reading of above evidence of PW.1 would indicate that Shop No.3 in the very same premises was vacated three years back and the same was let out to Rajeshwari Medicals. Therefore, though Shop No.3 was vacated even prior to the filing of the eviction petition, according to the evidence of PW.1, the said shop was let out to Rajeshwari Medicals. The evidence of PW.1 has to be read along with the averment found in the counter of the petitioner. The petitioner/tenant in her counter affidavit clearly admitted a shop in the ground floor of the same premises got vacated in April, 2011 and the same had been rented out to a third party for Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner herself admitted a shop in the very same premises was vacated and same was let out to a third party. It is not case of the petitioner that some other shop is vacant and available for occupation in the very same premises.

¶7Though the petitioner in her counter affidavit also claimed that respondent is owning several building in the very same city, the petitioner has not let in any evidence to substantiate the same. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner as if, the respondent is owning some other non-residential building is not acceptable to this Court.

¶8The son of respondent was examined as PW.1. He deposes that he would like to start financial business as soon as he gets vacant possession of the demised premises. In such circumstances, finding rendered by the Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Appellate Authority that the requirements of the respondent/landlord is bona fide is based on appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no perversity in the orders passed by the Courts below.

¶9Accordingly, I do not find any error or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below and consequently, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

16.02.2024 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No : Yes / No dm To

1.The VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2.The X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

S.SOUNTHAR, J. dm

16.02.2024 C.R.P.(NPD).No.3706 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.24362 of 2019 S.SOUNTHAR,J. This matter is posted today under the caption 'For being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the tenant carrying on business in non-residential building. Therefore, time may be given for vacating the premises.

¶3The learned counsel for the respondent was heard on this aspect.

¶4Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is carrying on business in non-residential building, this Court is inclined to grant six months time to the petitioner to vacate 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 within a period of one week that he would hand over vacant possession to the respondent on or before 26.08.2024 without driving the respondent to execution proceedings. b) The petitioner shall continue to pay the agreed rent of Rs.5000/- on or before 10th of succeeding month starting from February 2024. c) If the petitioner fails to comply with any one of the conditions mentioned above, the time granted for vacating the premises will not enure to him. The respondent is at liberty to proceed with execution proceedings.

¶5Registry is directed to issue fresh order copy by incorporating the above said changes.

26.02.2024 nr S.SOUNTHAR,J. nr and C.M.P.No.24362 of 2019

26.02.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.02.2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.24362 of 2019 Babita Agarwal ... Petitioner vs Chandra Devi ... Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act 1960 as amended under Act 23 of 1973, praying to set aside the decree and judgment in RCA No.663 of 2014 dated 06.09.2019 by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai confirming the decree and judgement in RCOP No.1714 of 2011 dated 22.08.2014 on the file of the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, allowing the said petition filed by the Respondent herein for eviction under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act and to set aside the said decree and judgment. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Prathap for M/s.G.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.G.D.Vaishnav