IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16/07/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1399 of 2004 and C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1400 of 2004
A.1392 Batlagundu Co-operative
Stores
Rep. by its Special Officer
No.2-1-268 Main Road
Batlagundu
Dindigul District .. Petitioner in
both CRPs
-Vs-
K.S.A.Mohammed Yousuf .. Respondent in
both CRPs
These civil revision petitions are preferred under Sec.25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1908 against the fair and
decretal orders passed in R.C.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2003, dated 23.2.2004, on the
file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Principal Sub-Court,
Dindigul, confirming the orders in in R.C.O.P.Nos.1 and 4 of 1998 dated
11.4.2003 on the file of the Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Nilakkottai.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
^For Respondent: —
:COMMON ORDER
Aggrieved over the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Dindigul, confirming the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the
tenant namely a Cooperative Society, has brought forth these revisions.
2. The respondent, who was the owner of the premises, found in the
petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.1 and 4 of 1998, sought for eviction of the
petitioner tenant, who was running a shop in the said premises, on the ground
that it required for demolition and reconstruction. The said claim was
resisted by the petitioner tenant stating that the landlord demanded a higher
rental, and since it was refused, he has come over with a false claim. The
Rent Controller on enquiry and on consideration of the materials available,
found that it was a fit case for eviction and accordingly, passed the orders.
Aggrieved, the petitioner tenant took it on appeals in R.C.A.Nos.1 and 4 of
1998, wherein the orders of the Rent Controller were affirmed. Aggrieved, the
tenant has brought forth these two revisions.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner tenant
would submit that both the lower authorities have not considered either the
factual or the legal position and have taken an erroneous view; that an
Engineer was examined; but, he has relied on an inspection report, which is in
respect of the other part of the building, and apart from that, there was no
satisfactory evidence to show that the respondent landlord had got the
sufficient means to raise the construction in the property, and under the
circumstances, the lower authorities should have rejected outright the request
of the respondent.
4. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner and scrutiny of the available materials including
the orders under challenge, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
case is made out even for admission or for a notice to the respondent.
5. Admittedly, the respondent is the landlord of the premises in
question, and the revision petitioner is running a shop therein. In order to
substantiate the fact that the petitions mentioned premises was 75 years old,
the respondent landlord has not only examined himself, but also relied on the
reports of the Advocate Commissioner and the Engineer, who made an inspection
of the premises. The Advocate Commissioner in his report has stated that the
building was 80 years old, while the Engineer has given a report that it was
60 years old. However, from the records available, it would be abundantly
clear that the building was more than 60 years old. Apart from that, the
report of the Commissioner would clearly show that the cracks in the walls
were also found, and thus, it required a demolition.
6. In order to show his bonafide, the petitioner has filed the
approved plan issued by the Town Panchayat in respect of the construction in
question, which would include not only the properties in the occupation of the
petitioner Cooperative Society, but also the other two tenants. So far as the
means of the respondent landlord is concerned, he has stated that he is having
a property worth Rs.25.00 lakhs, and his wife is having 125 sovereigns of
gold. The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that
as regards the jewels of the wife of the landlord, no evidence was produced
before the lower Court, cannot be countenanced. While the respondent has come
forward with the case that he is having sufficient means, and even if at all,
it suffers with any evidence, there cannot be any impediment for the
respondent to raise sufficient means even by borrowal. Taking into
consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances, the Rent Control
Appellate Authority has affirmed the orders of the Rent Controller and rightly
too. This Court is of the considered opinion that the orders of the lower
appellate forum do not warrant any interference in the hands of this Court.
Hence, the orders of the lower appellate forum have got to be confirmed.
7. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed at
the admission stage itself. No costs. Taking into consideration that it is a
cooperative society, running a shop, three months’ time is granted from today
for vacating the premises and handing over possession to the respondent.
Index: yes
Internet: yes
To;
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.
2. The District Munsif, Nilakkottai.
nsv/