In this civil revision the fair and decreetal orders, dated 11.03.2008 passed, in R.C.A.No.1 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Nagercoil, confirming the order of eviction, dated 31.12.2003, passed in R.C.O.P.No.65 of 1988, on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Nagercoil, are challenged by the tenant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per the nomenclature in the rent control original petition.
3. The case of the petitioner / landlord in brief is as follows: 3.1. The petitioner is the owner of the petition Schedule property (hereinafter, referred to as ?the property) and the same had been given on lease to the respondent / tenant on 22.10.1966 at the rent of Rs.400/- per month. The respondent had been giving the rent to the petitioner regularly and obtaining receipts for the same and thus, there is a landlord ? tenant relationship between them. The petitioner is in possession of a portion of the building bearing N.M.C.No.198 and she is conducting classes in that portion. She is a retired Headmistress. After retirement, she started a School in the year 1981 by name St.Tresa's Anglo Indian School in the building situated in the northern portion of the property. During 1981, she had started L.K.G., and U.K.G.Classes and thereafter, expanded the School from year to year and during the academic year 1987-1988, the School was having classes upto 6th Standard. The petitioner also got eviction of the building bearing N.M.C.Nos.6/5-194, 195, 196 and 196A and made demolition of the same and effected reconstruction and had been conducting classes upto 6th Standard therein. The petitioner had to start classes from 7th Standard in the School from the academic year 1988-1989 onwards for the benefit of the students, who had completed 6th Standard as they have to be promoted to the next classes and they have to be provided with facilities for their further education. Further, the strength of the School also is increasing year by year and hence, the present area is not sufficient for the purpose of starting further classes in the School and the petitioner is in bona fide need of the property by way of additional accommodation and for her own use and occupation for the purpose of conducting classes 7th Standard onwards and for starting other new classes. Further, the building requires to be demolished and a new building is to be erected in that place for the purpose of additional accommodation of the School for starting additional classes. The petitioner wants to develop the property for better investment and put it to better use. The petitioner has made all necessary arrangements for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and also applied for sanction and submitted a plan for necessary approval to the concerned authorities. The petitioner undertakes to carry out the demolition work and put up a new building within the time allowed by law. The petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the property by issuing a notice terminating the lease. On the other hand, the respondent sent a reply containing false allegations and further, the respondent also denied the title of the petitioner in respect of the property and hence, the rent control original petition.
4. The case of the respondent / tenant in brief is as follows: 4.1. The property had been taken on lease from the year 1953 onwards and the rent had been gradually increased from Rs.45/- onwards and from December 1986, the rent has been fixed at Rs.400/-. The respondent has paid the rent to Mrs.Joseph Annammal upto her lifetime and the petitioner, thereafter is receiving the rent on behalf of the joint family. The respondent is not sure about who among the heirs of Mrs.Joseph Annammal had inherited the property and therefore, there is no landlord ? tenant relationship existing between the petitioner and the respondent, since the petitioner is not the sole owner of the property after the demise of Mrs.Joseph Annammal. The petitioner has not placed any arrangement made between her and her sisters as regards the title of the property. It is false to state that the property is required for expansion of the School of the petitioner from 7th Standard onwards as put forth in the petition. It is false to state that petitioner requires the property for additional accommodation for the purpose of increasing the classes in the School. It is false to state that the petitioner is in need of the property for her own use and occupation for conducting classes of 7th Standard onwards and other new classes. It is false to state that the building existing in the property is an old building and it requires to be demolished and the building is very strong and the said ground has been projected by the petitioner only to evict the respondent from the property. It is false to state that petitioner has taken necessary steps to demolish the building and improve the property. The notice sent by the petitioner has been properly responded by the respondent. The respondent is doing commercial business in the property and hence, the petitioner has no cause of action to file the rent control original petition and the cause of action pleaded by her is also not bona fide and hence, the rent control original petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. In support of the petitioner's case, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P20 were marked and in support of the respondent's case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R17 were marked. In addition to that, C.W.1 was examined and Exs.C1 and C2 were marked.
6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Rent Controller was pleased to allow the rent control original petition laid by the petitioner and ordered eviction of the respondent on all the grounds put forth by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred an appeal and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on a re-appraisal of the materials placed and also permitting the respondent to mark additional document listed as Ex.R18, held that the order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the respondent on the grounds of denial of title and owner's occupation is not legal and accordingly, set aside the same, however, confirmed the the order of eviction of the respondent as determined by the Rent Controller on the grounds of additional accommodation and demolition and reconstruction and on the above lines, the Rent Control Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal preferred by the respondent.
7. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
8. It is found that the petitioner has laid the eviction petition against the respondent on four grounds, namely, additional accommodation, owner's occupation, denial of tile and demolition and reconstruction.
9. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a tenant in respect of the property. It is also not in dispute that originally the owner of the property is one Mrs.Joseph Annammal. The petitioner Josephine Gomez is one of the daughters of Mrs.Joseph Annnammal. However, it has been admitted by the respondent that after the demise of Mrs.Joseph Annammal, it is only the petitioner, who had been receiving the rent from him on behalf of the family. Be that as it may, now as seen from the materials placed, it is found that the property had come to be vested with the petitioner by virtue of the Will and in this connection, the order of probate has been marked as Ex.P1. Accordingly, it is found that the petitioner being entitled to claim the property as such she is entitled to maintain the eviction petition against the respondent. However, according to the respondent, inasmuch as it has not been made known to him as to who among the daughters of Mrs.Joseph Annammal had succeeded to her estate, he had entertained a bona fide doubt as to the ownership of the property and therefore, doubted her title to the property. Accordingly, it is found by the Appellate Authority that the respondent had bona fidely disputed the title of the property and therefore, considering the materials placed before it, The Appellant Authority has held that the denial of tile by the respondent is not wilful and accordingly, determined that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of denial of title cannot be justified. As regards the above findings of the Appellate Authority, there is no material placed before this Court to disturb the same and therefore, it is found that the Appellate Authority has on the sound reasonings held that the petitioner is not entitled to seek for eviction of the respondent on the ground of denial of title.
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is running a School in a portion of the property and the place, where the School is being running is just adjacent to the property involved in this matter. Further, it is found that upto classes 6th Standard, the petitioner is presently running the School and according to the petitioner, as she has decided to expand the School activities by increasing the classes from 7th Standard onwards, hence she is in need of the property situated adjacent to the School building and therefore, she sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground of additional accommodation. At the same time, for the same reasons, the petitioner has also sought for eviction of the tenant on the footing that the same is required for her own use and accommodation. Admittedly, the building existing in the property is a commercial building. Therefore, it could be seen that the pleas of the petitioner seeking for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of additional accommodation and owner's occupation, as rightly found by the Appellate Authority, being inconsistent with each other as both cannot go together found that the above approach of the petitioner cannot be legally sustainable.
11. However, proceeding to consider the case of the petitioner on merits, the Courts below, particularly, the Appellate Authority has found that the petitioner had been running the School in the building now occupied by her upto 6th Standard and that she is in need of the property in question for conducting classes from 7th Standard onwards. With reference to the same, it is also found that the petitioner has placed adequate materials as regards her intention to start further classes and expand her School activities and in such view of the matter, considering the present building occupied by the petitioner being a small area and as the expansion of the School activities would require more area and finding that the property involved is adjacent to the existing School area, held that the property is bona fidely required by the petitioner for the expansion of the School run by her on the ground of additional accommodation. Accordingly, both the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that the petitioner has made out a case for eviction of the respondent on the ground of additional accommodation. As regards the above findings of the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the learned counsel for the respondent has not placed any material as such to deviate from findings of the Court below or to hold that the findings of the Court below with reference to the same are perverse or un-sustainable in the eyes of law.
12. The Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority had also gone into the question of relative hardship that would be undergone by the parties concerned while considering the ground of eviction put forth by the petitioner on additional accommodation and accordingly, held that if the eviction is ordered on the ground of additional accommodation, the consequential relative hardship is not in favour of the respondent and thereby held that the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of additional accommodation. This finding of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority does not call for any interference as both have gone into the matter in depth and correctly determined the relative hardship to be experienced by the parties concerned if eviction is ordered based upon the materials by the respective parties.
13. As regards the ground put forth by the petitioner seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of owner's occupation, as rightly determined by the Appellate Authority, once the eviction is ordered on the ground of additional accommodation, the eviction sought for on the ground of owner's occupation being inconsistent to the same, rightly declined the ground put forth by the petitioner to evict the respondent on the ground of owner's occupation. With reference to the same, in this revision, no contention has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to deviate from the said finding of the Appellate Authority.
14. As regards the ground of demolition and reconstruction put forth by the petitioner for seeking eviction of the respondent, it has been rightly determined by the Courts below that the building existing in the property is fifty years old and also not in a good condition and therefore, it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. That apart, as rightly determined by the Courts below, inasmuch as the building is required by the petitioner for expanding the School activities and thereby if the building is demolished and a new construction is put up in the place, the petitioner would be in a position to augment her income and so holding, held that even on the reasons cited by the petitioner, she is entitled to seek for eviction of the respondent on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. In this connection, as regards the condition of the building and putting up new construction, it is found that as determined by the Courts below convincing materials have been placed by the petitioner and so considering the same in the right perspective and as the respondent has not placed any material to contradict the same, held that the petitioner's case seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is justified and accordingly, ordered the eviction of the respondent on the said ground. As regards the above findings of the Courts below also, the respondent's counsel has not made any strong submissions or placed any materials to take a contra view than the view taken by the Courts below and therefore, I hold that the Courts below have rightly held that the petitioner has made out a case for eviction of the respondent on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.
15. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has considered all the facets of the case both factually as well as legally in the right perspective and accordingly, ordered the eviction of the respondent on the grounds of additional accommodation and demolition and reconstruction and as the said findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority are not shown to be perverse or unsustainable in the eyes of law, it is found that the respondent has no case in this civil revision petition and accordingly, I hold that the civil revision petition does not merit acceptance.
16. Resultantly, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 11.03.2008, passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Nagercoil, confirming the order of eviction, dated 31.12.2003, passed in R.C.O.P.No.65 of 1988, on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Nagercoil, are confirmed and the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Nagercoil.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Rent Controller, Nagercoil.
.